Why men should NEVER pay for the first date

2 Dec

front page


This article appeared in Metro and you would think by now my anger towards feminist hypocrisy would have abated, given the sheer volume of it, but alas, it has not. This article really pisses me off, because it paints women as such pathetic, rapacious, grasping whores and if anyone wants to know why some men have such a low opinion of women, you need look no further than Yvette Caster. Let’s look at this nasty little piece of work in detail. Yvette in italics.


I have something to admit.


Bitch please. Get ready for some butthurt.


Despite being a feminist and despite being more than capable of affording my own dinner, I still want a man to pay for me on dates.


Isn’t that nice. It’s good to want things. Let’s see if you’re worth it.


The first time I realised this was during a date in Islington.


Oh Islington. Posh bitch, are you? How shocking!


We’d been chatting on Match.com when he asked me out to lunch.

He asked you out to lunch or he asked you to meet for coffee? Your story is falling apart already luv.


At first it seemed perfect – there he was, waiting for me at the Tube turnstiles, chatting as if we were old friends then leading me to a lovely book shop/café.

He was waiting and he led you to a café? I’ll bet you thought that was perfect. Why, it’s almost like you’re a Princess or something!


The barista asked us both what we wanted.

She didn’t assume he would order for you? How sexist of her to treat you as equals!


He replied quickly ‘coffee’ and paid for his. I had to buy my own chamomile tea.

The bastard! You had to pay for your own tea? Why didn’t you pay for his coffee? Just curious.


No, I did not reply to his subsequent emails.




Look. I can afford my own tea. But, as one male friend later put it ‘if he can’t be bothered to do that he can’t be that bothered about you.’

And if you can’t be bothered to pay for your own tea, that’s a pretty good indication you can’t be bothered about him, either, unless it involves cash flowing in your direction. Very noble *cough* whore *cough*.


Paying for a women on a date has nothing to do with feminism.

Of course not. Paying your own way would indicate you are a mature, independent, self-sufficient adult capable of taking care of yourself and that has nothing to with feminism which is about women being mature, independent, self-sufficient adults capable of taking care of themselves.




To me, it’s a way for a man to show, very clearly, that he likes you. Enough to try to impress you. Enough to make some effort.

Well I hope you plan on blowing him afterwards or at least giving him a handjob because if you have the right to demand money from a man as his way of “impressing you” or showing that he “likes you”, surely he has the right to demand sex from you for the exact same reasons? It’s the age old transaction, right? You take his cash, he takes your body. Very, very progressive of you. But wait, let me guess – that’s not the deal you want is it? You want to take his money and give nothing in return. How gracious. Who could refuse?


On a bigger scale, it’s a way for a man to prove he will be a good boyfriend – thoughtful, kind, generous and supportive.

Yeah, and an impromptu blowie out in the back lane is a way for you to prove that you will be a good girlfriend – thoughtful, kind, generous and supportive. On your knees, toots! Turnabout is fair play, no?


Of course relationships are not one-way streets. Many women earn more than their partners and end up being the ones supporting their family financially in the long-run.

Can you say lip-service? You get his money, he gets jack-shit. That street? She’s one-way!


But that initial gesture of paying for a simple dinner, a lunch or a tea signals an intention to support you, as well as showing that they come from a good family that values manners.

Why the fuck should he support you? What entitles you to a man’s support from day fucking one? I’m not saying men and women supporting each other is bad, but it’s not something you are owed. It’s something you negotiate over a long relationship. You begin as equals which means pay for your own fucking tea and stop acting like such an entitled, whiny little bitch.


In short, it says ‘I like you and I’d like to look after you.’

Look after yourself. Prove you are an adult. Then maybe another adult might be interested in having a relationship with you and not your inner four year old sulky Princess.




Relationships are about mutual support.

Indeed they are, and where exactly have you shown a single inclination to support him? You had a tantrum over buying your own tea!


Sometimes we are so proud of ourselves and our hard-won independence I think we forget that.

You certainly appear to have done so.


Only a total relationship novice would argue that people don’t need support from their partner sometimes – emotional, mental and, yes, sometimes financial. And, of course, they give it back in return.

It is 100% sexist bullshit feminist hypocrisy for you to demand the man show support first, and in the form of cold hard cash. Gee, I wonder why men think women are gold-digging whores with people like you around?


This emphasis on going Dutch from the start makes my heart sink.

Not mine. Going Dutch is just another word for a world in which men and women are equals and since I am not a feminist, I actually think that looks like a pretty wonderful world.  But leave it to a feminist to scream out the dictionary definition of feminism and then reject the actual practice of equality.


How exactly is a man supposed to sweep you off your feet if he can’t buy you dinner and roses any more?

Stand on your feet, woman, so a man can respect your strength, confidence, ability and resilience. Without those qualities, you are not an adult. You are a child.


Of course, if you’re simply looking for sex, not a partner, why are you bothering with dinner at all?

Of course, if you’re simply looking for cash, not a partner, why are bothering with dinner at all?


There are enough hook up websites around to make meeting up for drinks (who cares who pays?) then ‘fun’ absurdly easy.

Why not just give him your bank account, ask him to deposit the cost of dinner/tea/a movie and be on your merry little way?


One final note – to those men complaining about how much dating is costing them in London I say three things.

How about we give that advice to all the people dating in London? Remember the dictionary? That whole equality thing? Ring a bell at all in your vacuous, vacant little brain?


  1. It doesn’t take much research to find nice restaurants or coffee shops to suit your budget.

So find one you can afford and ask him out for a change. Pay for yourself. Pay for him, too.


  1. Be more discerning in the number of women you ask out. If you don’t like her enough to buy her dinner you don’t like her enough to be her boyfriend.

Be more discerning in the kinds of people you ask out. If they are only in it for the money, place the trash on the curb and walk away.


  1. If women, on our still unequal wages, can afford to buy nice outfits, make up, shoes, hair dos and the cost of prebooking a taxi in case you turn out to be a sex pest, then you can afford to buy us dinner.

If a woman can’t afford dinner but is still spending money on clothes, make up, shoes, hair and being chauffeured around, run the other direction because this woman is a moron who will ruin you financially, emotionally and physically. If a woman demands you pay for her in order to enjoy the great pleasures of her narcissism, petulance and immaturity, she will demand that forever.


These women do not grow up. They stay five years old forever. My advice to men is carry a sippy cup and a bag of Cheerios. If she demands you pay for her, hand her the juice and cereal and tell her to enjoy her childhood.



Then go find a real woman who knows what it means to be an adult and how to stand on her own because she understands that relationships really are mutual and sometimes you will need to lean on her. You can’t lean on someone who wants to be swept off her feet.




You’ll both just end up broken on the ground.


Lots of love,





150 Responses to “Why men should NEVER pay for the first date”

  1. paulvzo December 2, 2014 at 14:56 #

    Well, for the cost of a cup of tea, what he did IS rather weird. It instantly labeled him as a pence-pincher. It would only get worse if they continued dating. “Honey, why go to Starbucks when we can make our own tea here?”

    Presuming his goal was to get in her knickers, he certainly had to know that not paying for her cup of tea was going to send her away in a hurry. It’s called an “investment.” A few shillings for the price of admission? PRICELESS.

    While the rant was overboard for such a minor event, I don’t think she’s out of bounds.

    Gee, even male friends and I pay for the other, it’s just easier. It will be reciprocated later.


  2. epistemol December 2, 2014 at 15:09 #

    Very nice!


  3. dylanb December 2, 2014 at 15:31 #

    In spite of her whining, childishness and petulant entitlement he still should have paid for her simply because he invited her out. If it was the other way around then she should have offered to pay for him since it would have been her doing the inviting. This is just good manners.

    Maybe in the time it took to get from Angel tube station to the coffee shop he had realised his mistake in asking out a snide, sniping bitch and had decided to get rid of her by pointedly not paying for her tea.

    Also, the ‘invitation to lunch’ sounds like an invitation to a tea/coffee at lunchtime – not quite the same thing, ie don’t flatter yourself, darling.

    Finally, I wouldn’t be surprised if this all happened within the confines of her imagination because she was on a deadline and had to churn out any old crap to fill a few inches of column space with drivel that feeds the righteous indignation (we all love the warm fuzzy feeling of righteous indignation) of whoever might read her article.

    In short, an instance of rather shabby behaviour by a man towards a spoilt brat.


  4. Liam December 2, 2014 at 15:33 #

    You are SO right, JB. I read this article the other day, and the first thing that went through my head is that it encapsulates so perfectly the was feminism wants all of the perks of being a woman but none of the down sides.

    In a traditional model, a man asked a woman out, decided where they went, paid, opened her door for her, walked on the outside side of the curb, etc. A woman, for her part, was gracious, got to decide when, or whether, sex occurred, and then once a relationship progressed, was a good supportive wife, supporting her man’s career and keeping his home and making his food.

    I don’t like the traditional model, for the record, but that’s kind of what it was.

    So what the feminists want is to KEEP the decision over whether there’s sex, KEEP the man paying, KEEP the man asking (but have the option to ask if they WANT to), KEEP the man opening the doors for her, but expect him to be supportive of HER career and not really expect anything out of her.

    The whole “I treat you like a princess on a pedestal” model of dating is part and parcel to the gender inequality issues of the past. You simply don’t get to keep the pedestal but refuse to play out the rest of the role.

    It’d be like if I said “Hey, mortgage company, this whole having to pay you mortgage money every month, that’s so oppressive. But I still expect you to put up the money for the house I want to buy, because that’s how you show you value me.”

    Life is give and take. You don’t just get to take the parts you want but insist that it’s oppressive to be required to give your side of things.

    This article made me so amazingly angry… (The original, not your reply to it, your reply was, as always, awesome!)


  5. Liam December 2, 2014 at 15:37 #

    The problem was her sense of entitlement. Yes, it does seem odd, if I asked someone out on a date, I’d expect to pay for her.

    But the way she tells her story, I wonder if it really went down like that. I’ve had enough dating experiences on dating web sites where the date is SUGGESTED by the woman. Something like…

    her: “Hey, we should meet up and talk more in person!”

    me: “That’s a great idea, would you like to have coffee at (local coffee shop) on Friday after work?”

    Now, in this example, SHE technically asked ME out first, but left it to me to fill in the details. I’d probably STILL pay for the coffee, but I’ll be damned if someone says it’s my responsibility to. Not when I’m dating someone who, as part of the first thing she tells you about herself, says “I’m a feminist”.

    Hell, in our world today, I might be cautious about picking up the check just BECAUSE she self-defined as a feminist first. Who knows, she might find my picking up the check condescending and rude…


  6. That_Susan December 2, 2014 at 15:46 #

    Well, I call myself an egalitarian, but I’m realizing that this is one area where my thinking is kind of confusing even for me. I definitely believe in relationships being a two-way street but I’ve also always preferred to have the guy call me up and invite me out, so I see it as preferable for the male to start out by pursuing and demonstrating his interest by taking the woman out and paying her way for maybe the first two or three dates or so — yet I don’t think it has to be expensive for it to count as a date.

    After going out a couple of times and realizing we’d like to spend more time together, then I saw it as time for me to do something nice like cook a meal for him. We’d eventually spend more time hanging out in casual ways — watching home movies together, etcetera — than actually going out and spending money. Once you’re “in a relationship,” it seems reasonable to talk about stuff like how much you can spend or want to spend on restaurants and entertainment, whether you want to go Dutch, and so on.

    Even in friendships, one friend will sometimes say, “I’d like to take you out to lunch — my treat.” But again, in most cases, it will end up being a two-way street, unless one friend happens to have a lot of money and the other friend is in dire circumstances. In my own case, I frankly don’t have money to take friends out to lunch right now, but I can invite them over for a meal or offer some kind of refreshments; I have one friend who doesn’t drive and she sometimes likes to buy me a treat I’d never splurge on for myself when I give her rides.

    But then I’m 50 and married. It’s been a long time since I was in the dating scene, and I don’t plan on ever returning. But I guess it seems reasonable to me for the person who starts the ball rolling to be the first one to spend some money, but once the ball is rolling and it’s established that they both like each other, it’s time to talk about finances and move into more of a give-and-take relationship.


  7. Zelcorpion December 2, 2014 at 15:52 #

    Maybe the man had no intention of inviting her, because he realized that paying for an 70+ pounds overweight 32 year old who looks 10 years older is not such a good deal. Maybe he was too inspired by all feminism talk and thought he would insult her in his “I’ll be the man and pay” manners. http://yvettecaster.com/2014/09/11/that-time-i-met-annie-lennox/
    But I guess it’s the patriarchy’s fault for her not having found the perfect Mr. Big yet.


  8. Wilson December 2, 2014 at 15:53 #

    Price of admission too high
    A woman who is still dating in her 30s only has herself to blame


  9. Liam December 2, 2014 at 16:12 #

    The problem is that what that does is it sets precedent. So it’s all well and good to theoretically say “after a few dates, we can even things out”, but by that point, you’ve already set the pattern that HE pays.

    And look, that’s fine if that’s what you and he want, but if so, then you have to admit that you really aren’t looking for a completely egalitarian relationship.

    This is the thing that hangs up so many feminists, in my view. They don’t seem to grasp that wanting some of the parts of a “traditional” relationship that are preferential to them sort of obligates them to some of the parts of a ‘traditional’ relationship that are preferential to the guy.

    It’s like any interaction, there’s give and take. It doesn’t HAVE to be “even split down the middle every time”, but it DOES have to be a fair division. If you want him to pay, then you accept that you’re starting in a traditional model, which also has it’s requirements on you, and you don’t get to say “as a feminist, I reject the strictures put upon me by social construct” but still insist on the strictures put on men.

    That’s all I’m saying.

    Look, I pay on most of my dates. I do it less because as the guy I think I should but more because I’ve been fortunate to make a better than average living, and I can afford to do it. But I’m not going to date a woman who feels it’s my obligation, unless she ALSO makes clear that she recognizes SHE has certain less-than-politically-correct obligations towards me that feminism would deny she has…


  10. saynotocrazy December 2, 2014 at 16:25 #

    You’re assuming that he was just after sex.

    Maybe he was actually interested in a relationship and he prefers to date adults not big children.

    Maybe it had come up in their online conversations that the whore (she wants to be paid for in return for services) was a feminist. In which case maybe he made the assumption that she maybe actually *meant* what she was telling him about wanting equality? In which case he figured that if tried ordering for her or paying for her order he would be diminishing her agency and treating her as less than an equal?

    No, this girl in a woman’s body is a hypocritical self-entitled “princess” wanting to be swept off her feet by a big, strong…wallet.

    Personally, it’s the hypocritical part that annoys me the most. I’m quite the opposite of any sort of tradcon. I often find their ideas ill-informed, bigoted and repugnant. However at least a tradcon woman wouldn’t be hypocritical in expecting to be paid for.

    No, the whore rejected the man for reasons that could have been taken out of an episode of Seinfeld.


  11. Liam December 2, 2014 at 16:28 #

    I should say, in that last bit, I’m not necessarily implying sex, either.

    For example, I had a friend who was married to a woman who insisted that they split the housework evenly right down the middle. He was supposed to do half of the dishes, half of the cleaning of the bathrooms, half of the mopping of floors, half of the laundry…

    Except when it came to the traditional male roles, she never took on half of the “taking the trash out to the curb” or the mowing the lawn or the repairing the car.

    That’s the sort of thing I’m talking about. When you start talking about a “fair distribution of labor”, you have to lump in ALL of the labor. Because otherwise, you may just be talking about taking what’s already a fair distribution of labor and re-distributing half of your own load.

    I am not, in any way, against a fair division of dating and everything else. I’m also not against a more traditional division which imparts certain obligations on each part based on their gender. And I’m not against reversing those roles, if that’s what the couple in question wants.

    I just don’t like the idea that while we’re throwing out all of women’s obligations, we still think “Oh, but men’s obligations are just how they show that they’ll be a good partner.”

    Having the cake and eating it to just isn’t how it’s supposed to be.


  12. Emma the Emo December 2, 2014 at 16:29 #

    I can understand why not paying for her tea would be suspicious to a normal woman, but to a feminist, it should be a pleasure to pay for her own everything.


  13. Suzy Louis McCarley December 2, 2014 at 16:29 #

    So a coffee date isn’t about wanting just sex and not a partner, but she wants to be “swept off her feet. On that coffee date.
    My brain hurts.


  14. Liam December 2, 2014 at 16:31 #

    Exactly. It’s all about the couple of people in question. Any way you want to divide the labor and obligations is perfectly fine. What isn’t fine is coming into any given interaction with the expectation that you get to dictate that HE live up to traditional obligations, but YOU get to flex your feminist muscles and not be bound by any traditional feminine obligations…


  15. Dr. Weezil December 2, 2014 at 16:39 #

    So let me get this straight:

    Feminists complained about “traditional” mores, i.e., men inviting women on dates, choosing the location, paying, so men stopped doing that.

    Now they are complaining that men don’t do that anymore.

    And what’s worse is the anti-feminists are supporting the original feminist whining because of their/your silly devotion to the fantasy of egalitarianism.

    I’m sorry, JB, you’re 100% wrong here. The dude asked, he selected the place, he should have paid. This gal, while perhaps way over reacting because that’s what columnists do when faced with everyday situations, was in the right to think he behavior weird.

    If I’m asking a girl out, I’m paying. It’s the mannerly, adult, masculine thing to do. I am announcing my intentions to perhaps take care of this women. And yes, I do believe that women need taking care of by men.


  16. Liam December 2, 2014 at 16:47 #

    I’m not convinced he did ask her out. Given the holes in her story and the way on-line interactions often go, I’m absolutely not convinced she didn’t initiate and then call it him asking her out because he suggested the location.

    I agree that if he in fact did the initiating and everything, his behavior was weird. But damn it, taking that example as a way to justify expecting that men should pay for a first date with her always, while pointedly being a feminist and thereby bringing with it all of the “none of the societal expectations on MY behavior can be considered to apply” that that entails…

    His behavior MAY have been suspect, depending on whether the details are exactly as she’s presenting them. Her attitudes are absolutely the worst of self-entitlement. What’s mine is mine, what’s yours has been unfairly given to you and should be half mine…


  17. alcockell December 2, 2014 at 17:01 #

    Hmm – I seem to remember this behaviour by that stupid bint was called “clipping” or “rinsing”.


  18. Tyler December 2, 2014 at 17:01 #

    Yeah, negotiating who pays can be a weird experience for me as well. I come from a poor background, where everyone paid for their own everything, because we couldn’t afford even a $10 imbalance. In that culture, if a guy paid for a chick’s meal, she was all but expected to put out. There were guys who let chicks use them, as there are in any community, but it was well understood that she was derelict in her side of the equation when that happened.

    Nowadays, I’m better off, but I still expect grace and token gratitude from someone if I pay for their meal, male or female. I’ve not had the occasion to experience it in a date setting, but I have observed some others. When the ages are comparable, dutch is the norm. One paying for the other is either a display of dominance or of supplication, depending on how it’s executed, but it’s a charged action either way. If one guy is significantly older than the other, though, the older guy almost always pays. This is ostensibly because the older guy has more money (and they often do), but the dynamic holds even when their financial means are comparable. Part of this has to do with the fact that there’s such a premium on youth in the gay sexual marketplace, so the young guy almost always has the power position in the prospective relationship. Another part is that, strange as it may seem, a fair number of gays like to (partially) adopt traditional gender roles in various arenas like dating and division of labor. Heck, I’m about the least socially submissive or feminine homo I know, and I still got all besmitten when a guy on a date stepped up and scared off a shady dude that was approaching us. Heck, I’ve done that exact thing myself (minus a date partner present) a couple times, but the protector thing is powerful boner fuel when wielded by a man.

    So I guess my two cents on the matter is: first date interactions are a really complex nonverbal and subtextual conversation and negotiation. Looking for a man who’ll adopt a traditional provider role and pay for your meals? Then act feminine, and drop hints about (or outright discuss) your interest in living up to expectations of your reciprocal role. Also, am I the only person thinking it was teenage-level immature to straight up dismiss him over such a small thing? If an adult had a real problem with him not paying, she would (or should) mention it and ask what his own views on paying for meals are. And if he’s not worth that small amount of discussion, then it’s not really about the tea, is it?

    Final thought: this whole situation reminds me of that JB story where she missed her flight coming back from helping PPP with her ill son, and it was going to cost Mr. JB hella bucks. Instead of copping a bitch face and whining about how unfair (insert scapegoat here) is, she fixed her hair, put on some lip gloss, cinched up her yoga pants, and went all Feminine Charm on the airport desk guy. And because she showed every indicator of being a lady who lives up to her side of the traditional male/female role deal (sweet, supportive, and pleasant in exchange for strong, protector, provider), he fixed her problem for free, when he’d let the guy right before her hang in the wind. Simple moral: you want to be treated like a lady, fucking act like one!



  19. Jon December 2, 2014 at 17:31 #

    Women have generally abandoned any and all notions of equality and your post hilariously exemplifies this:

    “I call myself an egalitarian, but … I’ve also always preferred to have the guy call me up and invite me out”


  20. Jon December 2, 2014 at 17:37 #

    “And yes, I do believe that women need taking care of by men.”

    Well, no they really don’t need you to take care of them. They just WANT you to. “Look at me, look at me, damsel in distress” is just a woman’s way to get you to pay for her shit … and you fall for it. You’re what’s known as a sucker (or husband and father, same thing).


  21. Jon December 2, 2014 at 17:41 #

    Damn you’re good. Knocked that one out of the park!



  22. judgybitch December 2, 2014 at 18:02 #

    I am economically dependent on my husband and he pays for me and takes care of me, but that is something we negotiated as a couple. We both wanted our children raised at home by a parent full time. It is this woman’s expectation that she is OWED a man’s care that irritates me. Don’t call yourself a feminist and then demand a man pay for you from the word go. Bullshit. I don’t think I’m wrong at all.


  23. paulvzo December 2, 2014 at 18:06 #

    So figure this one out, I can’t: I “met” a woman in Santa Fe through a mutual acquaintance. I life in Florida. The spark caused a prairie fire……. She is a very well educated, liberal-but-hates-feminism, semi-retired woman who has assets (“My stockbroker……”) I’m retired with only a very low income and no assets, as she knew in the first few days.

    She came to visit for six days. We had a great time, so much laughter. And that other stuff. We split the cost of the airfare and parking………and I paid for EVERYthing else. Her needs and expectations were definitely low maintenance, but the few times we went out to eat or go to a bar, she made zero effort to help with the bill. Not even the gesture knowing I would turn it down. Zero.

    We split up in June, but that behavior still puzzles me greatly. I’m just glad I could afford it.


  24. richard December 2, 2014 at 18:33 #

    Maybe he knew she was a vocal feminist (maybe because that’s the only thing she talks about). Maybe letting her pay for her own tea was his way of showing he respects her feminist ideals of equality. Maybe if he knew she was expecting him to pay for her he’d do it. Good thing he didn’t. He’s better off without this pest.


  25. FuzzieWuzzie December 2, 2014 at 18:39 #

    Dating in the UK has to be awful. I did once stumble over a woman’s profile on OkCupid that listed eight things she wouldn’t do. They were all things that I had never heard of before, as an American, and they were all mean and rotten. I’ve since put the details out of my mind.
    She did mention match.com and online dating is a real boon to women. Lots of messages from men that would normally be out of her league. Note how she expected to be swept off her feet. That’s more evidence. Onlone dating only works for guys who willing to date down. This will not lead to long term relationships.
    This article is just another “date gone bad” story that does have a following. From where I sit, it sounds like sour grapes. Not all these are going to fly. However, by the time she got home, I’ll bet there were ten more messages in her inbox at match.com.
    I don’t know what the answer is but, it may help if men take a break from dating.


  26. Eric December 2, 2014 at 18:46 #

    JB: “Well I hope you plan on blowing him afterwards or at least giving him a handjob because if you have the right to demand money from a man as his way of “impressing you” or showing that he “likes you”, surely he has the right to demand sex from you for the exact same reasons? It’s the age old transaction, right?”

    I think the age-old, ie, traditional pair-bonding (ie, pre hook-up culture) mating transaction is not tea for sex. It’s more akin to a continuum to I the man provide you a house and you the woman provide me a home (as we pair-bond, like sperm and egg, as the nucleus of a family). The social norms, customs, and rituals that clarified the age-old transaction for men and women have been thrown into chaos, though.

    It appears she is asking for a piece of the age-old transaction but asking for it out of context.


  27. That_Susan December 2, 2014 at 18:48 #

    I actually was a bit behind my peers in terms of being ready to date and being comfortable relating to the opposite sex, so I spent a lot more time than the usual person observing various relationship dynamics from a safe distance without being in the thick of all the emotions like they were.

    And one interesting phenomenon I observed was that even though some men DID enjoy receiving the positive strokes of having a woman pursue them and be willing to be the first to put her feelings out there and risk rejection — well, they enjoyed that kind of attention, but the women they ended up falling for were the ones THEY had to pursue and take a risk for.

    It seems fairly commonplace for a happily married couple to have had a relationship that started out with the woman being, or acting, completely disinterested. And here I’m not talking so much about “nice” guys staying in the friend-zone for years; I’m talking more about guys that the woman thinks are ‘jerks” or “arrogant,” or just not marriage material for some reason or other — and then something happens to make her realize she really does have feelings for the guy and he really is a good person after all, or has become a good person if he wasn’t in the past.

    One example is the parents of one of my high school friends. They married when she was 16 and he was about 28 (they were from Tennessee, where girls marrying very young seems to be more commonplace). He was in love with her for at least a year or so before she’d give him the time of day. He had a reputation for drinking and going to motels with one of the women in town who was labeled as “not the kind of girl you marry.” Anyhow, there were several incidences of my friend’s mom agreeing to go out with him, chickening out at the last minute, and being gone when he came to pick her up. She’d take off with one of the many boys her own age who were always hanging around her house.

    Then one day, he seemingly gave up and she saw him with his old girlfriend. When she saw him again, she talked to him and said she didn’t want to get in the way of his relationship with the other girl. And he said something like, “I’d drop her in a split-second if you’d go out with me.” And she told him that the next time he wanted to take her out, she’d be there. And she was, and they got married soon after and raised four kids.together.

    That’s just one of various examples that made me realize that even if waiting for a man to pursue me meant not getting to go out as much, it was worth it not to be one of the women who got dropped as soon as the guy whose ego they were stroking managed to earn the love of a woman he’d actually had to pursue. Maybe this is my own little version of red pill reality.

    Does anyone think I’m wrong in my belief that while men may like being pursued, they’re more likely to fall for a woman whom they have to pursue?


  28. Sarah December 2, 2014 at 18:50 #

    The sense of entitlement is born out of traditional gender norms. Despite what some may think, feminist women are more likely to go Dutch (or at least offer) as well as to pay for the guy, because they’re more inclined to see both sexes on equal footing. But many men prefer paying it themselves, at least at first, probably to indicate their ability to provide. So it’s largely the rule.


  29. Sarah December 2, 2014 at 19:06 #

    I’m with you in theory, but in the off-chance you ever get confronted with the expectation of paying the date, you should probably know that a cup of tea does not buy a BJ.


  30. Liam December 2, 2014 at 19:13 #

    No, I understand that. My point is that you don’t get to EXPECT gender norms while loudly proclaiming yourself a part of a group that spends a lot of time decrying and protesting against gender norms.

    It’s hypocritical. You don’t get to complain about having to paint someone’s house after you’ve signed a contract to do so, but still expect them to live up to their part (paying you).

    I am not against gender norms. As I said, I think there’s room in the world for every sort of relationship from the ultra ‘traditional’ relationship all the way to every “extreme” sort of poly relationship, straight to gay, asexual to need-to-reinforce-the-house-walls-since-they’re-being-bounced-off-of-so-much.

    My problem is not with any particular style. It’s with HER sense of entitlement that says “I expect a man to pay for me” right after implicitly saying (by identifying herself in her first few words as a feminist) that she does not support holding a woman to the traditional feminine roles.

    If she dates a guy who’s up for that, that’s great. Or if she’s willing to accept the feminine role that goes along with that traditional masculine role, that’s fine. But expecting that you have the right to dictate other people’s behavior while at the same time loudly insisting that no one has the right to dictate your own, that’s just selfish, entitled behavior.

    And I’ve had both sorts of relationships. I’ve dated women for whom I paid for everything, and they in turn would cook for me and do some of the “traditional” female things, to my current relationship in which we share things pretty much equally and if I tried to insist on paying more than half of the time, she would (metaphorically) kick my ass… And I’m OK with both. I’m just not cool with someone who demands that they get the best of both worlds. This is not someone who cares about me, but only cares about what the man she’s dating can do for her. It’s a selfish attitude, especially coming from someone who justifies her behavior as wanting some assurance that the guy actually cares about her…


  31. Liam December 2, 2014 at 19:18 #

    Nor did I ever suggest that it did.

    All I suggested is that if I come across the EXPECTATION that I pay on a date (rather than appreciation that I did so), followed closely by a refusal to follow any of the prescribed norms for her side of the traditional equation, that’s not a woman I’m going to see a second time.

    I’m not saying a date means she owes sex. I am saying that we’re either going traditional or we’re not. We’re not doing some hybrid that’s traditional when it works to her advantage and modern when it works to her advantage. This doesn’t tell me the woman has any interest in ME, but only in what I can do for her.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Liam December 2, 2014 at 19:23 #

    There are elements of biology that modern society does not like to admit to. Men have so long been the pursuers that most still expect to be. Women have so long been the pursued that many still like to be.

    The same things you’ve said of men also apply to women, as much as women say they want a nice guy, a guy who treats them with respect and asks their opinion and the like… That’s not who really gets their heart pumping.

    And this isn’t my observation, this has been pounded into my head by a number of my female friends, who admit to me in private moments that as much as they WANT to want the nice guy who is always supportive and always there for them, the guy that really makes them want to tear off his clothing and go to town on him is the guy who is assertive and aloof and strong and not at all what is popularly described as a “nice guy”.

    But to admit those things (and also to admit that they certainly do not apply to ALL men or ALL women, just apparently to the majority) is to run counter to feminist thought, where it seems that adhering to the dogma is more important than recognizing what actually exists.


  33. Liam December 2, 2014 at 19:26 #

    In fairness, I think JB’s blowie/handy comment was for brevity, because it’s easier than saying “I hope you also expect to keep his house for him”, since we’re talking about early dating not late term relationship.

    But you’re right. It’s asking to keep the benefits of “traditional” gender roles while jettisoning the parts that require something of her.


  34. bledi December 2, 2014 at 19:42 #

    But here is the kicker. Who does most of hte asking out? The man. So, really, this is still just another way of making the man pay the woman’s way simply for gracing him with her appearance on the date. Im sorry but if things are supposed to be equal, pay your own damn way. Remember, we’re both on the date because we are looking for a partner, right? Why does the person asking out HAVE to be the one paying for everything? That honestly seems absurd to me. After all, you AGREED to going out. Why are you EXPECTING that the other person pay for you?


  35. Sarah December 2, 2014 at 19:44 #

    I hold similar beliefs — couples should both contribute to the relationship, and how they divide tasks is up to them. I’m just saying, if a girl anticipates a guy paying for the first date, it’s not necessarily indicative of her being an entitled brat, it may just be symptomatic of a culture in which that protocol is so common.


  36. Sarah December 2, 2014 at 19:57 #

    Women don’t need taking care of by men any more than men need taking care of by women. If you’re speaking economically, then I invite you to crawl out from under that rock and into the 21st century.


  37. Liam December 2, 2014 at 19:59 #

    She doesn’t anticipate, though. She writes an entire piece on how she EXPECTS it, and how if the guy doesn’t do it, she sees it as an indication that he doesn’t really care about her, and I think it’s extremely odd that she can be so un-caring about the guy and his circumstances in favor of expecting him to pay for her, in the guise of wanting to to that he cares about her.

    She’s sending the message that his money is more important than he is, so that she can be assured that she’s more than just… what? A person he wants to spend a little time getting to know?


  38. That_Susan December 2, 2014 at 20:11 #

    I have heard that some men actually come right out and say that it’s a big turnoff for them if the woman makes the first move…so while I’ve personally found that egalitarianism is great after you’re already married or at least in a strong committed relationship, it doesn’t work out so well if the woman has too egalitarian of an approach to dating and the guy loses interest because he never gets the thrill of being the pursuer and having to win her heart.

    From my experience, even in an egalitarian marriage, most men are happier when they usually get to be the ones to initiate the physical relationship. We went through a bit of a difficult patch when it seemed to be taking forever for me to get pregnant with our second child and I became rather obsessed with trying to figure out exactly when I was fertile and “make” it happen. And it was only after I relaxed and stopped trying to make it happen that I finally got pregnant with Dear Daughter Two.

    So I see egalitarianism as a little different from rigid equality. It’s accepting that you’re both different (not just male and female different but different PEOPLE) and working out a relationship and division of responsibilities in which you can both be happy. And it doesn’t matter whether anyone else approves of your arrangement, because they’re not the ones living your life.


  39. Sarah December 2, 2014 at 20:20 #

    I’m speaking generally, to afford someone you don’t know the benefit of the doubt. This author is entitled, and also not representative of feminism.


  40. slacker December 2, 2014 at 20:28 #

    Sounds like a clear cut case of someone refusing to practice what they preach. I don’t care who asked who out, if your world view is built around being a “Strong” and “Independent” woman than being upset about having to pay for a cup of tea is ridiculous. Feminist go on and on about how much better society would be if we did away with gender roles but this particular feminist was turned off by the fact that the guy didn’t act as her provider the instant she met him in person.


  41. That_Susan December 2, 2014 at 20:31 #

    This may make sense rationally — but when a guy says this, it comes across like he’s been burned too much to be able to give of himself wholly in a new relationship. And as I say this, I’ll also say that I agree with those who say that women don’t have any place telling men what they “should” be attracted to in a woman. It’s men’s prerogative not to like fat chicks or chicks over 30.

    It’s evolutionarily reasonable for a man to seek out the youngest, prettiest, and most gentle and maternal woman he can attain — and it’s also evolutionarily reasonable for a woman to see a man who’s unwilling to pay for her tea as a man who might abandon her if something beyond her control, such as an illness or a high-needs child, renders her unable to meet whatever he deems to be her end of their marital bargain.

    I’m not trying to pull the pregnancy card here, but while I absolutely loved being pregnant, pregnancy and childbirth were also the experiences that slapped me head-on with the realization of my own mortality, my own human frailty and need for others — and especially for my husband to be there for me. During those times, I would’ve hated to be married to a man who kept careful tabs on each of our contributions, and acted like it would kill him to ever be the more generous one.


  42. Mr. Right December 2, 2014 at 21:21 #

    It probably went down like this. Man sees woman. Man is instantly unattracted to her because she does not resemble her profile. Man feels duped. Man does not intend to signal that he is attracted. Girl gets butthurt. Girl makes up reason to mask her rejection. Silly girl.

    As a man, I always pay if I am attracted to the woman. Not because I have to, but because I am a man.


  43. The Jack Russell Terrorist December 2, 2014 at 21:23 #

    I saw a metal sign with Marilyn Monroe on it and the caption read”I don’t mind living in a man’s world as long as I can be a woman in it”. Feminists want to be a man in a man’s world,then they wonder why they have to pay their own way on dates.


  44. Jack Strawb December 2, 2014 at 21:25 #

    *Of course* the author is representative of feminism, which is special interest advocacy on behalf of women. It has no interest at all in equality.

    Feminism’s thoroughgoing hostility to shared parenting initiatives is the perfect and abiding example of its hostility to equality. Mothers are the primary abusers of children, and are responsible for half of all parent murders of children. Safety has nothing to do with the opposition of groups like NOW to shared parenting.

    By all means, though, note three issues where even one major feminist group is WORKING towards equality. You won’t find those issues, because that is not what contemporary first-world feminism does.

    Yvette Caster could not be a more apt example of today’s feminists.


  45. Jack Strawb December 2, 2014 at 21:26 #

    What is that?


  46. Jack Strawb December 2, 2014 at 21:34 #

    ” Im sorry but if things are supposed to be equal, pay your own damn way.”

    I would be extremely skeptical of any woman claiming her primary identity is feminist who thought ANYTHING other than her paying for herself on the first date was the right and the smart thing to do.


  47. Jack Strawb December 2, 2014 at 21:36 #

    ” During those times, I would’ve hated to be married to a man who kept careful tabs on each of our contributions, and acted like it would kill him to ever be the more generous one.”

    Just as I don’t doubt most men would hate to be married to a woman who acted–as Yvette Caster seems likely to–like she was continuously pregnant.


  48. Jack Strawb December 2, 2014 at 21:38 #

    “So what the feminists want is to KEEP the decision over whether there’s sex, KEEP the man paying, KEEP the man asking (but have the option to ask if they WANT to), KEEP the man opening the doors for her, but expect him to be supportive of HER career and not really expect anything out of her.”

    I just wanted to see that again. Cheers.


  49. Liam December 2, 2014 at 22:31 #

    I agree with you entirely. I’m not against differences in behaviors, I’m just against expecting one gender to be super human and the other to be pampered in the name of equality.

    But if you agree that men looking for young and healthy is as valid as women looking for successful and care-taking, the we have no substantive disagreement! Good day to you!


  50. joe@schmoe.com December 2, 2014 at 22:35 #

    This is all about expectations. It’s hard to know what to do since everyone has different expectations.

    If paying for the woman who en vogue, and you got this awesome, supportive woman, like judgybitch, I would pay twice a day.

    But you often aren’t. You are screwed most ways because you don’t know how things are interpreted, nevermind what kind of woman she is.

    Guys really just want a clear hint about how things are going to be interpreted, so they can figure out the language that expresses to the woman, what he wants, feels, and how she does as well.

    This woman, being a judgemental jerk, should tell him up front, what she wants and why.

    Let him decide.


  51. The Real Peterman December 2, 2014 at 22:49 #

    Typical feminist: her idea of equality is having all of the benefits but none of the drawbacks of modern life. Hell with her.


  52. The Real Peterman December 2, 2014 at 22:49 #



  53. freebird December 2, 2014 at 23:29 #

    After a month of being lead on by batted eye,turn of hip,and exposed bosom,I bought this one post wall gal w/ kids a dozen long stem roses,they were gorgeous.

    She went triple nuclear,flexing her humiliation muscles in public,and created a false moral panic,essentially ‘warning’ the Herd I was ” a creeper.”

    Now,I consider it my fault,lesson learned-treat them badly always,and the florists can go broke as far as I am concerned.

    You wimmin are seriously messed up in the head!

    nice article JB, love the anger.

    The note on the roses:
    “You’re beautiful when you;re angry.”

    As it turns out,not so much…


  54. Jax December 2, 2014 at 23:40 #

    Yeah… that hasn’t been my experience. At best, a woman will pay lip service to the idea of splitting the check, but if one were to actually take her up on the offer, he’d be instantly labeled a cheap-skate. Which is, essentially, the same as demanding that the man pay- except it’s less honest.


  55. Richard December 3, 2014 at 02:39 #

    But the point she is making, is that this shouldn’t be “implied” or “expected”. We can choose to do it, or not, and as Gail Vaz Oxlade tells people on her shows; “no whining, and no bitching”. This woman wants the feminism of the 21st century, with the chivalry of the 19th, and these are mutually exclusive domains. I’m new to this site, but I really like JB.


  56. Jason Wexler December 3, 2014 at 02:39 #

    My dating experience is pretty limited, but as a gay man as well, I’ve always made sure to discuss the who pays part, before the date happens so there is no confusion. That seems fair and equitable but in heterosexual relationships, it seems to run afoul of the fact that women (and I’m consciously making a distinction between women and feminist, here, keep in mind when I generalize in comments on this site I tend to mean feminists), are not of one mind about how dating etiquette works, and they seem to not realize that not every women has the same expectations that they do but want men to approach them the way they expect, knowing their etiquette preferences without prior discussion. That seems pretty fraught with peril for straight guys, I know it’s really just an inconvenience for guys and ought not be treated like a microagression, on the other hand we aren’t mind readers, you’ve got to use your words ladies.


  57. FuzzieWuzzie December 3, 2014 at 03:18 #

    I keep coming back to this post wanting to write a rocket. It’s not feminism but, a byproduct of it, contempt for men. The reviewed author is not relationhip material and is just plain bad company. However, they do keep finding guys who’ll date them.


  58. Greg Allan December 3, 2014 at 04:24 #

    I’ve said it before, men need to go completely lysistrata.


  59. Jack Strawb December 3, 2014 at 05:11 #

    “Why men should NEVER pay for the first date”

    Well, not paying for her IS a sensible way of finding out if she’s a grownup.


  60. Jack Strawb December 3, 2014 at 05:13 #

    “Presuming his goal was to get in her knickers,,,,’

    That’s a silly presumption. You realize they’re not 16, right?
    It’s damnably odd that anyone over that age would omit the whole ‘getting to know the other person at least a little’ part of the equation. If you’re looking to just get laid, a matchmaking website can’t hold a candle to a bar.


  61. Jack Strawb December 3, 2014 at 05:19 #

    It appears a few of you have missed the larger context. She doesn’t want him just to pay for her wimpy cup of chamomille; she wants him to pay ALL the time.

    “Despite being a feminist and despite being more than capable of affording my own dinner, I still want a man to pay for me on dates.”

    I wouldn’t be at all surprised, in any case, if he looked at her, realized this wasn’t going anywhere, and took the path that seemed likeliest to end things. She’s not a particularly attractive woman and who knows what she’d managed to yammer by the time they got to the cafe.


  62. Jack Strawb December 3, 2014 at 05:22 #

    By the way, Caster looks like she easily cracks 180 lbs., if not 200.



  63. h December 3, 2014 at 06:09 #

    I agree with you that she is being over the top entitled. Her blog post shows that completely. But I kind of see too how on his end he could have come off as a penny pincher in a way. Just by the way he ordered and paid on the spot I guess (who can tell though, we weren’t there, so can’t say for sure).

    BUT, I will say that there is nothing wrong going dutch on a first date. She is acting so entitled and judging him too much off the bat. The thing with online dating is that a first date is not really a first date. With online dating, there is a step before the first date cause you have NEVER MET yet. I think it’s ok to have a chill meeting the first time and get some coffee and go dutch and talk, you just met for the first time.

    Then if it goes well, go out again and then THAT is your first date. And if he wants to pay for you, ok. But it’s important to be grateful. Someone taking you out and paying for you is a very, very sweet gesture that some women take for granted and even expect which is wrong. Some women just don’t see what an impressive thing it is that someone is treating you. Always be grateful, always offer to pay as well! I never expect a man to just shower me with things. Especially when it’s just a date! It’s not a relationship yet.

    And even in a relationship, it’s give and take for both people. And the thing is, you get what you give. So if you want to give nothing, don’t expect a lot. That’s not fair. But I am always so floored when a guy does invite me out or pays for me. I don’t EXPECT him too, but when a guy does that, I find it so sweet and giving, no matter who he is.


  64. h December 3, 2014 at 06:11 #

    I agree with you that she is being over the top entitled. Her blog post shows that completely. But I kind of see too how on his end he could have come off as a penny pincher in a way. Just by the way he ordered and paid on the spot I guess (who can tell though, we weren’t there, so can’t say for sure).

    BUT, I will say that there is nothing wrong going dutch on a first date. She is acting so entitled and judging him too much off the bat. The thing with online dating is that a first date is not really a first date. With online dating, there is a step before the first date cause you have NEVER MET yet. I think it’s ok to have a chill meeting the first time and get some coffee and go dutch and talk, you just met for the first time.

    Then if it goes well, go out again and then THAT is your first date. And if he wants to pay for you, ok. But it’s important to be grateful. Someone taking you out and paying for you is a very, very sweet gesture that some women take for granted and even expect which is wrong. Some women just don’t see what an impressive thing it is that someone is treating you. Always be grateful, always offer to pay as well! I never expect a man to just shower me with things. Especially when it’s just a date! It’s not a relationship yet.

    And even in a relationship, it’s give and take for both people. And the thing is, you get what you give. So if you want to give nothing, don’t expect a lot. That’s not fair. But I am always so floored when a guy does invite me out or pays for me. I don’t EXPECT him too, but when a guy does that, I find it so sweet and giving, no matter who he is.


  65. EurEye December 3, 2014 at 07:19 #

    She makes too much fuzz about a perfectly understandable situation. I think she´s quite right about two things: the “I like you” message and that it has probably nothing to do with feminism.
    A man who is seriously interested in a woman will pay for the tea, because it is a safer bet than not paying. But if he doesn´t really care, why would he?
    Unless the man was a moron, that leaves us with the hypothesis that he probably looked at the woman in flesh and decided he didn´t like her enough to pay nor wanted to take care of her in a long term. Hence his economical approach.
    What amuses me, is how she automatically thinks he was really interested or just wanted sex. The beauty of her piece is she never for a moment considered the possibility that he was looking for a long term partner and she didn´t qualify. Maybe she reminds him of his nightmare ex in the way how she says hello. Or walks. Or he read her articles in between the invitation and the date.
    I think his actions quite clearly demonstrate she was worth a few “subsequent” emails (not a call, so he probably didn´t bother to ask for the number) but not the price of a tea.


  66. etmalthusianism December 3, 2014 at 08:50 #

    The best policy is to go dutch and make sure she knows she is going dutch BEFORE the event. A good way to shake off the gold diggers. Essential n’est pas in this age of hypocritical entitlement narcissistic feminism.


  67. Joel December 3, 2014 at 08:52 #

    I always offer to pay on a first date (but only on the first and the occasional times I feel like splurging) for two reasons.

    One: I genuinely enjoy spending money to make other people happy and even treat all my guy friends to restaurant dinners sometimes.

    Two: It’s a very good way for me to see what kind of woman she is. If she just accepts me paying without saying a word, chances are she’ll never hear from me again, unless she REALLY impresses me.

    If she offers to pay her share, I’ll offer a second time to pay… If she still insists on paying, I don’t offer a third time and she pays for her meal and I pay for mine and I now have a better idea of what kind of character this woman has and it’s usually a very pleasant second date.


  68. etmalthusianism December 3, 2014 at 08:52 #

    Next thing women will want equal opportunity and equal wages with which to be such purse shy hypocrites. Oh wait a minute they already have that.

    How does one spell MGTOW?


  69. etmalthusianism December 3, 2014 at 08:55 #

    Women want to have their cake and eat it too and they want men to pay for that cake while complaining about not being paid as much as men. No time for hypocrisy.


  70. AdamB December 3, 2014 at 12:02 #

    I remember this king of attitude from college. The admittedly rare times that I would get a date, all the self-professed feminists’ thought would suddenly change to High Medieval ladylike; i.e. expect “chivalry” in the form of free… everything, as a matter of fact. The catch was, and still is for many boys and men, that to expect anything in return, even simple respect, was being a misogynistic pig.

    Well, times change. Now I consider that if we are going to simply share some time together, that simple action should be enough, considering that my time is by itself something valuable. It makes easier to prune the ones simply looking for easy uses. Looking back, I cannot shake the feeling that did they somehow managed to be a little less superficial and look at the realistic prospective, I would have married one… and probably I’d have lost half or more of the money I earned by hard work and talent to her.

    Keep being so self centered, girls. In the long run, it will only hurt your chances.


  71. Ashley December 3, 2014 at 12:27 #

    I am a military vet a a law enforcement officer. One could say I am an independent woman. When I was single, if a guy didn’t pay for the first date and every one after I wouldn’t see him again. Why? Because in my feminine – yes feminine NOT feminist- heart, I believe in the traditional roles of men and women when it comes to marriage and house and home. I want a man who will be a good provider, not as in spas and jewels, but as in a family man who believes in traditional values. I want a man who values me enough to show it to me, picking up the tab is one of them. How? Put your money with your mouth is as well as be all the other things we look for as ‘husband’ potential. (Kindness, sense of humor, intelligence, etc). Our world has advanced to where women have more or less equal opportunities, but women are still the nurtures and men are still the providers as nature intended. That will never change no matter how many feminists scream from the roof tops. Do I begrudge that more men are in the higher ranks of military or law enforcement? No. How many women put their careers before their children? Not many because the nurturing force is strong within us. How many men do? Because they were born to be providers for their families. How many men would feel worthless if they couldn’t provide for their families? How many women eould feel guilt if they had to spend even more time away from their families? Traditional roles still exist in marriage and the tone is set on the first date and every day after. I’ve been married for thirteen years and for half of that time I made more than my husband. When our child was born I put my career on hold to be the kind of mother I wanted to be. I had no problem making more than my husband but we both agreed that when children came it would be best for our family to assume the traditional roles of nurturer and provider.
    Having an importance on who picks up the tab may seem shallow but to me it’s a good indicator of whether or not this guy could be a good provider down the road if like LEDs to love and marriage. Just my two cents,


  72. dylanb December 3, 2014 at 12:52 #

    You make a good point, especially given the journalist’s modern, strong, independent, feminist sensibilities. Such a woman should expect to pay for herself, simply because… equality. However, where I come from if you invite someone out then you’re expected to pay. Your guest can offer to contribute, you thank them and reassure them it’s not necessary and if they insist then you graciously accept.

    On the other hand, your guest can graciously accept your paying of the bill and thank you kindly.

    The key point here is that the journalist writing in the Metro is trying to have her cake and eat it. She wants equality AND privilege. She wants to be seen as strong and independent but also for a man to pay for her.

    I would recommend to her instead of complaining about not being treated like a princess she should instead write an article about the dilemma of modern life and the whole `paying your own way` aspect of it. Or maybe getting a proper job.

    She ends up coming across as selfish, petulant, childish etc, but this is not what gets me. What really bothers me is how many people will read this and reinforce their own selfish, petulant and childish attitudes.


  73. Jack Strawb December 3, 2014 at 14:41 #

    There’s a very good reason why he chose to pay for himself that no one is commenting on–she’s huge. I was curious about what might be at issue here, took a few seconds, and googled an image. I posted a link downthread to a picture of her. Why would anyone except a man whose appearance was equivalent to hers–meaning he’d have a massive gut and be at least 50 pounds overweight–want to continue to see her?

    And knowing what most women expect, what better way to discourage a future date without hurting her feelings?


  74. Liam December 3, 2014 at 14:52 #

    I think that’s a little harsh, there are people who find all types attractive. Psychologically, if a guy’s mom was morbidly obese, he’s more likely to find that attractive, or at least acceptable.

    I expect it’s more likely a case of the used-car salesman approach to on line dating, post pictures that minimize or entirely hide the flaws, or of “slightly” (ahem) older pictures before life and calories took their toll.


  75. Liam December 3, 2014 at 14:56 #

    (Accidentally hit post too soon)

    I never understand that model, do people think once they get a foot in the door, a person is going to settle for short, bald, fat and old when they thought they were talking to tall, trim, young and handsome/beautiful?

    Posting a pic that’s clearly you, just on your best (current) day is fine. Posting one from before you lost your hair, gained 200 lbs and had a hand amputated is bait and switch…


  76. Sarah December 3, 2014 at 16:08 #

    Yeah, you’re talking about unrelated things. But please, continue with the generalizations.


  77. That_Susan December 3, 2014 at 17:51 #

    Sarah, there actually IS a common thread between the fact that some feminists want men to pay on dates, and the fact that some prominent feminists, such as those running the National Organization for women (NOW), are opposed to shared parenting (see link below). It’s essentially the idea that the men who want equality in these areas have evil motives such as wanting to hang onto more of their money, while the women who oppose equality have virtuous (or at the very least neutral) motives for wanting to keep things unequal.

    In the case of dating, the feminists who want men to pay AREN’T seen as stingy or desirous of hanging onto their own money, as are the men who want to go Dutch. The feminists wanting the men to pay are seen as either wisely and virtuously testing whether the man really cares about them and will be a good provider, or else simply following a cultural norm. The men who want to go Dutch are seen as stingy.

    In the case of shared parenting, the women who’d like the default to be that primary custody is awarded to the primary caregiver, with the non-custodial parent only getting to see the child every other weekend and having to pay child support, AREN’T seen as just being out for the money; they’re seen as really caring about the best interests of the child. Whereas the men pushing for shared custody are seen as selfish and uncaring about what’s best for their children, and simply desirous of shirking their responsibility to support their children.

    Do you still think these two things are unrelated? It seems pretty obvious to me that feminism is strongly slanted towards a “women good, men bad” mindset.



  78. Goober December 3, 2014 at 19:53 #


    Did you talk to her about it? Perhaps she was afraid she’d insult you if she offered?

    The dating game is fraught with all sorts of trip wires that many don’t even recognize until it’s pointed out to them later.

    The advice I’d give the subject of the OP, and to you, is to give people the benefit of the doubt. No one is perfect.


  79. Goober December 3, 2014 at 19:57 #

    Keeping all the benefits of the patriarchy, but eliminating all of the responsibilities that come with them.

    Not that she was responsible to him for anything, but for her to assume that HE was to HER, while at the same time, eschewing any notion otherwise is…

    …what? Weird? Selfish? I’m not even sure. Certainly not “right” in the strictest sense.

    besides, how does she know that his last date didn’t chew him a new one for offering to pay for her, because “independent feminist?”

    I feel badly for men that are dating these days, especially men who aren’t super hot or rich.


  80. Spaniard December 3, 2014 at 20:17 #

    LOL LOL. Brilliant! 🙂

    “Then go and find a real woman who knows what it means to be an adult and how to stand on her own because she understands…”

    I do it every time I hire an escort.

    Liked by 1 person

  81. Spaniard December 3, 2014 at 20:23 #

    Sociology of paying bills when it comes to dating:

    UK (as long as I know): 50/50.
    Germany, Nederlands, France, Scandinavia, Spain: 50/50.
    Portugal, Italy, Greece: No clue.
    Mexico: 100% pays the man.
    Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Baltics: 100% pays the man.
    States: I thought it was 50/50. Not so sure now.


  82. That_Susan December 3, 2014 at 22:29 #

    From the responses I’ve read thus far, it sounds like a woman who expects the man to pay and doesn’t even offer to pay comes across as rude and entitled.

    At the same time, even though a man likes a woman better if she offers to pay her own way — if he’s attracted to her, he will still attempt to pay.

    The overall message to single women seems to be the following: Go on dates prepared to pay your own way and always offer to do so, but know that if he doesn’t attempt to pay for you, he’s probably not sufficiently attracted to you to care whether you’ll go out with him again or not.”

    Even if he’s not attracted to you, he may not be ready to totally write you off, though, if the feminist author is telling the truth about the guy emailing her after they’d met. So if he’s emailing you, and you like him enough to want to see him again in the hopes that you might grow on him, go for it — but if your experience up to this point has been that most of the men you date ARE attracted enough to you to want to buy your tea, then maybe his feelings are too tepid to be worth your time.


  83. tobisca December 4, 2014 at 01:31 #

    So while I do agree that all relations should be 50/50 how is this so. I do believe that you did mention these dynamics a while ago. The premise that you posited was that if you are male you throw done as a provider. Either I am misremembering things or I am quite intoxicated. Most likely the later.


  84. Mark December 4, 2014 at 02:04 #

    I’m a dirt poor graduate student. I refuse to pay for my date as a matter of course because, no matter how much I like her. The reason is simple: it wouldn’t be fair. Most of my dates make more money than me, so why should I be paying for their food? And yet, that seems to be how most of them think.

    This is a lesson for women out there. Guys like me who choose to prioritize something other than money and choose careers they love instead (or go for PhDs) don’t do nearly as well with women, because we can’t buy them drinks or means or gifts as liberally, can’t impress them with nice all the nice things. Ergo, men prioritize money, feeling (not entirely inaccurately) that it’s the only way they’ll have a chance with women, become extremely competitive over well-paying jobs, which scares away many women from those fields (especially because women don’t need money to attract a mate the way men do) and blame the competitive hostility on misogyny.

    This, like so many other problems, is an example of feminists complaining about a problem with how men behave, then proceeding to defend the very behavior on the part of women (expecting men to pick up the check) that drives the behavior in men of which they disapprove, as though hypocrisy were a virtue.

    Liked by 1 person

  85. Mark December 4, 2014 at 02:05 #

    In vino veritas.


  86. Mark December 4, 2014 at 02:06 #

    Btw, Judgybitch, an article you may be interested in: http://www.seattleweekly.com/home/955523-129/will-my-geek-son-be-a


  87. OptimumSlinky December 4, 2014 at 02:11 #

    At least the majority of the comments call her out.


  88. paulvzo December 4, 2014 at 02:26 #

    No, it didn’t bother me, it was just a point of amazement. Besides, I knew that after she returned home, something had changed between us, so I wasn’t going to help my self out the door.


  89. paulvzo December 4, 2014 at 02:28 #

    LOL! Yeah, like that would work! Stand united, brothers! Hey, where’s he going?


  90. Liam December 4, 2014 at 03:05 #

    Yeah exactly. The problem with the whole MGTOW thing is it requires a united front. You have to convince a majority of men that it’s the right thing to do AND keep them in line when the “price” of the “commodity” comes down.

    Even if you manage to make women a little desperate (and again, this requires more men to deny their basic biological urges than you’re going to ever get), as soon as the socially inept guys start seeing desperate women for the taking, they’ll break ranks and partake.

    MGTOWs think they’re undertaking this grand social change movement, and that’s where they lose me. Decide that the perils of dating and relationships are more than you’re willing to undertake, good on you. Go in peace.

    Convince yourself that you’re part of a grand vengeance that will change the world? You’re deluded. IMO.

    Plus, by the way, I’m increasingly running into a very funny phenomenon: the MGTOW who actually HAS a girl friend, but loudly tells everyone that she’s one of the (they’ll say “rare”) good ones that would never do any of the things that make things so perilous for men.

    At which point not only are they NOT a unified movement for change, they aren’t even a singular agent for change.


  91. b g December 4, 2014 at 04:04 #

    Hi judgybitch

    There is a new site that might interest you…women with some ideas not dissimilar to your own:



  92. mr.t December 4, 2014 at 08:03 #

    I love you jdudgy.
    Back in the days when I use to be stupid, I dated an older single mother, she never paid for anything and when I asked her why don’t you pay? , she said : I can’t afford it because I have a mortgage to pay for my house ! .I looked at her and said ; so I spend my money on you and you put your money into your house! . She looked back at me and said : I’m old fashioned.
    Feminist in every thing, but when it comes to pickup the bill, it’s old fashioned.


  93. comslave (@comslave) December 4, 2014 at 09:56 #

    I don’t mind paying for dates because it simplifies the relationship. I’m the john and the girl is the *ahem* whore. I don’t have to pretend there’s any emotional commitment. It’s simply a business deal.

    Oh, they want respect too? That comes from reaching for the check.


  94. Barlasgayolas* December 4, 2014 at 11:51 #

    If she told you she was old fashioned, she was.
    Old fashioned women are the worst: money suckers.


  95. That_Susan December 4, 2014 at 15:41 #

    Mark, what about just telling the woman you’re interested something along the lines of this: “I really like you and want to get to know you better. You’re the kind of woman I’d love to take out on the town and spare no expense for — however, this is a time in my life when I’m living in poverty in order to get a good education in a field I love, so I’m wondering if you’re interested in spending time with me even though I currently have no money to spend.”

    When I met my husband, he was living in poverty due to half his paycheck going to support his two daughters — one in her teens and one in her early twenties. I knew he was a great guy, and he also made it clear how much he really wanted to do for me. During our engagement, I helped him pay off some back child support that had accumulated during a difficult time in his life many years previously. By the time of our wedding, things were more manageable because, by that point, he only needed to pay child support for his younger daughter, so I was able to quit work during my pregnancy with our older daughter, and was blessed to be able to stay home with my two girls until they were five and ten.

    Now he is dealing with some serious health issues and I’m working again. We’re a team, and I’d much rather have a husband like my husband who is ready and eager to share everything he has (whether a lot or a little) with the ones he loves, than a husband who makes a ton of money but constantly has his panties in a wad because he doesn’t like sharing, and wants to keep careful tabs to make sure that all the expenses and responsibilities are divided right down the middle.

    I think that if you speak honestly about your situation, the right woman will care more about finding a man with a generous heart than about finding someone who’s rolling in money.

    Liked by 1 person

  96. That_Susan December 4, 2014 at 15:59 #

    I hope JB doesn’t start aligning herself with those white supremacists. I checked the “about” section of the link you sent, and discovered that the woman starting it is connected with the Return of Queens website, which (in my opinion) promotes the idea that there should be fixed roles for everyone — men, women, whites, non-whites, rich, poor, etc.
    (kind of like in the monarchies of old, I guess; everyone should know their station). LGBT people are not welcome on their site either, or at least they were banned at one point, but I couldn’t find that statement when I checked there just now, so they may have lifted that ban. As I mentioned in another post, it’s anti-feminists like this that make me just as hesitant to say I’m against feminism as I now am to identify as feminist.

    Here’s a link to an article that one of the writers there posted on the tragedy in Ferguson.



  97. paulvzo December 4, 2014 at 16:44 #

    Perfect! Good for you and your husband. Same reason I told that ex-gf my status. I don’t want to pretend I’m well off and then do something stupid like run up credit card debts.

    I wish you well.

    Liked by 1 person

  98. That_Susan December 4, 2014 at 17:38 #

    I wish you well, too.

    Liked by 1 person

  99. kryeedKryeed December 4, 2014 at 20:11 #

    funny that this would show up, as it’s close to my home. I skimmed through those comments and found a thread about women in the colleges. From the community college I go to, it’s about 50/50 but when I applied for a four year college they had a lot of scholarships directly aimed for women. things like ‘get women into hard science’ and such.


  100. Mr T December 4, 2014 at 21:23 #

    here is another story (back in the days of being stupid).

    ran into two feminist strong women in a bar that i previously met , they were on their way out , so i stopped them to say hi and we started talking …..

    the waitress came to us and asked them if they would like a drink , so they ordered a drink , when they finished their drinks they got up to leave without paying ! , I said to them are`nt you gonna pay for your drinks ? they said : well ,why should we ! we were about to leave and you stopped to talk to us , so, you pay !.


  101. Mr T December 4, 2014 at 21:51 #

    another crazy story,,

    met a women once and I could tell she was an entitled C$$T. just before leaving I asked her for her phone# , she asked me to give her mine (i know if women dont want to give their# , it means they are not interested ) so I gave her a fake # ,

    about a month later I ran into her again , this time I IGNORED her .
    she walked to me and said : I`m sorry I didnt call you , I was busy ,, . I looked at her and said : its ok , we`r even ,,. she said : what do you mean ? , i said : I gave you the wrong# . she said : did you do that on purpose ? I said ; yes . she gave me the look of evil and walked a way .


  102. Mark December 5, 2014 at 00:46 #

    But they say that most of a person’s opinion about you is determined by the first impression, and I believe it (though I think a more succinct way of putting it is ‘most people are shallow’ or at least more so than they admit to themselves). So to attract someone (men and women both, though in different ways) you have to have something going for you superficially. Good looks, appearance of wealth, or lacking those two, being one of those 1 in a million people with extraordinary charisma.

    Or maybe most of it just comes down to luck.


  103. Mark December 5, 2014 at 00:51 #

    And they’ve been quite successful. The biological sciences, judging by the student population, may well be female-dominated through and through within a generation. Already most of the academic jobs specifically state that women will be given automatic preference. Some areas like math and physics may not get there for a while, but they’re working on it. And by the time those fields have female majorities, in most academic disciplines women will outnumber men more than 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 in some. I guess Sheryl Sandberg’s ’50/50′ goal is a one way street.


  104. Mark December 5, 2014 at 00:58 #

    But why not just go directly to an actual ‘escort’ then? If it takes an average of 3 dates to get what you’re looking for, factoring in time expended and transportation, not to mention the uncertainty that she may require more than 3 dates, or may even be a ‘wait until marriage’ type (one cannot actually tell just by looking at a person how promiscuous they are, no matter how much some insist they can), it’s probably cheaper to go with a ‘professional.’ By my calculation at least. Maybe you’re Don Juan.


  105. paulvzo December 5, 2014 at 01:48 #

    Three dates? What patience! I can only think of one of those in a long, sordid bachelor history. And all of the other first dates – other than meeting in a bar that night – were dinner at my house and then the rest was history.

    Many told me how nice it was to do something other than the go out to dinner dance, having to make a decision, etc. It was so low key, talking while I’m cooking, plenty of wine to be had, get comfortable with the environment.

    Be creative!


  106. Mark December 5, 2014 at 02:21 #

    I hate bars. Can’t stand the music, always way too loud. Plus I live in a studio apartment and don’t own a car.


  107. Can't Remember… December 5, 2014 at 06:12 #

    But what makes you entitled to a man’s money right from the get-go? Why should he provide for you when you could be the worst date he has ever had? Not wanting to pay for your own damn dinner really says a lot more about your character rather than his. You should prove to him you are worthy of being invested in, financially and emotionally, before he start providing for you. I mean if providing is what you want from a man, you better be a woman who actually deserves his money, so the onus is on you to show him you are indeed, a quality woman. Now there is of course, a possibility that he will decide on the first date that he likes you enough to pay for you, but for most people, it takes more than one date to want to invest in someone.

    Liked by 1 person

  108. Spaniard December 5, 2014 at 09:04 #

    If you start talking to any Russian woman who is already having a drink in bar or a cafe, it is understood that you are going to pay for everything she drank or ate before you arrived (so you have to pray she did not order a lot of stuff) It is part of the culture. But I think it is not where you live. I guess,


  109. That_Susan December 5, 2014 at 11:50 #

    Well, my husband won my heart when he wrote a song for me — so I guess what he had going for him was his music and poetry. Well, he does have gorgeous blue eyes, too. ::)


  110. Master Beta December 5, 2014 at 13:47 #

    That’s good for you. I don’t really have a problem with that and I don’t think many people would do. But these women are, unlike you, feminists, who are insisting that the man pay for them on the date – which is highly hypocritical wouldn’t you agree?


  111. paulvzo December 5, 2014 at 13:47 #

    Mark, I read your post last night and am still puzzled by it. Your point is??????

    Are you justifying your not getting laid to yourself? Are you asking for suggestions to change that? Does it somehow relate to the original story and my comment that I can’t see?


    I can assure you that your situation would not have stopped me one bit in my, um, dating days. Slowed things down, sure.

    Working backwards, I didn’t need a car to have women drive to my place. Then, I’m sure you know, or can know, a decent number of (indecent, ha ha?) women who live like you and aren’t digging gold. They’d be pleased to spend time with you if you offer something of value, and I don’t mean money. Figure out your strengths, capitalize on them.

    First, (I’m working backwards), I suggest you either accept that bars are the best place to meet women, or just go suffer in silence. It’s just fact. No stranger women ever walked up to my door and offered herself while I was home moping about my circumstances. Dancing is the very first, easy, animalistic, primitive interaction you can have with a woman. And slow dancing, first physical contact with first yes/no signals flying back and forth.

    While I’ve never been w/o a vehicle in my adult life, I’ve been w/o a socially acceptable one. And I’ve lived in a rented room in the ghetto. Still got laid by some very quality women.

    Unless I’m completely misinterpreting your comment, my interpretation is that you are defeated before you even start.

    It’s all in the head, friend. OK, maybe only 90%.


  112. Master Beta December 5, 2014 at 14:10 #

    If I had to guess – are you sure it’s not your taste in women?

    You must have known women who complain about all the “bad men” they are dating – meanwhile, she has several really top blokes pining after her attention that she just ignores. Well, men do exactly the same thing. I’ve known plenty of men who get annoyed at how “superficial” women are, then chase after a high-heel wearing, silicon breasted, make-up lathered girl with fake blonde hair – all the while, ignoring any woman who doesn’t pour loads of time and money into her appearance.

    I know I’ve known plenty of women who have very little interest in a man’s money. Then I’ve also known plenty who are very interested in a man’s money.

    Liked by 1 person

  113. lanthanumentertainment December 5, 2014 at 14:10 #

    Reading thru the post, it’s funny how her own statements seem to be working out against each other.


  114. yoursexymaster December 5, 2014 at 17:10 #

    This reminds me of a date I went on a while ago, I literally ditched this bitch after paying for my meal. The only reason I remember her is because she ran out after me shouting “why didn’t you pay for me!?” I literally had an okay time but the fact she bitched about being all strong and independent meant that I just wasn’t going to pay for her much less date her again.


  115. trevor December 5, 2014 at 18:35 #

    I disagree, my mom was obese and it’s had the opposite affect on me. I don’t find overweight women attractive at all. Maybe it was the years of her lounging around the house in her underwear that turned me off. Plus she yelled a lot and was unhappy. I find a lot of my friends overweight girlfriends to be bitchy and unhappy.


  116. Jack Strawb December 5, 2014 at 22:34 #

    That’s interesting to me, that you think noting a woman is hugely overweight is “a little harsh.”

    Caster is unattractive. Are we really at the point where a simple statement of fact is somehow out of line?


  117. Jack Strawb December 5, 2014 at 22:40 #

    I couldn’t agree more. I thought Ashley’s letter was parody at first, given it’s absolute sense of entitlement before she even knows a man.

    Liked by 1 person

  118. Jack Strawb December 5, 2014 at 22:54 #

    Your last paragraph has been my experience, too. There are a lot of women who don’t particularly value money. It’s extremely important, though, even in those cases, for a man to have enough money to at least do things. They don’t have to be fancy things, but being nearly broke makes it very, very tough.

    Liked by 1 person

  119. Jack Strawb December 5, 2014 at 23:00 #

    Mark, from your linked article;

    “… which created two types of tournament: some open to all, some for women only. For example, one commenter on the Gamespot website accused the new rule of inflicting “absolutely disgusting sexism against men. It was fine before, men and women had their own little playground but now its some sort of PC abomination.”

    The commentary failed to recognize that women have been tormented and alienated for so long that many women would feel unwelcome and unsafe in coed tournaments.

    The arguments were dumbfounding. Is this the kind of community I am so eagerly preparing to raise my son in? A community where boys are taught that women cannot compete on an intellectual level with men?”

    It’s unpopular to say, but chess and bridge have been run this way for decades, with Women’s sections, and and Open sections. Women can’t compete with men in these games, but Men’s sections became Open sections in order to work around gender-bias lawsuits in the 1980s.

    Chess and bridge have been inexpensive games women have been encouraged to play for a century, and they still can’t compete with men.

    Men’s and women’s brains and abilities are different.


  120. Jack Strawb December 5, 2014 at 23:02 #

    Definitely the route I went when I was in school. I learned to cook one fancy dish really, really well.


  121. paulvzo December 5, 2014 at 23:20 #

    High five, bro! (Can an old man say that?) God, that made me laugh! As I’m fond of saying, become a master of planned spontaneity. I’m very creative, but not always fast. So I’m spontaneous to the best of my ability ahead of time.

    Your one dish cooked really, really well was new to each new woman. As I suggested to Mark, find your strengths, capitalize on them.

    One thing I didn’t quite have a grasp “back then”, but was close to, was, that woman want sex just as much as men do. These last years of internet porn prove that. Women just, generally, want to be convinced that they should have sex with you, now.

    As some comedian said, “Women need a reason to have sex. Men need a place.”

    Supply that reason, she’s yours.


  122. mr.t December 5, 2014 at 23:42 #

    I live in the land of feminism, Canada


  123. wager December 5, 2014 at 23:55 #

    No, not in the least bit pertinent to the article or your comment. I am rarely deterred by irrelevance.

    I am definitely getting bitter in my ‘old age’ (mid 20s). But I would still argue that my attitude is more the consequence of the results I’ve gotten than vice versa.

    Plus I don’t think I have the patience or psychological wherewithal to go twerk and have a voluntary seizure in public to the sound of some guy rapping about all the felonies he’s committed. Another topic entirely, but my generation really weirds me out.


  124. paulvzo December 6, 2014 at 14:07 #

    Wait. Are you Mark? Or, not? Or, replying to me in the place of Mark?

    Hey, do what you want, don’t do what you don’t want to do. I think dancing is a hell of a lot of fun, let alone the means to connect with a woman. “Some guy rapping about the felonies he’s committed?” Wow, neither would I go there. Find another bar.

    Anyway, overlooking our huge age differences and I’m no long in the game, back when I would have said, “Fine, less competition, more pussy for me.”


  125. Spaniard December 6, 2014 at 18:28 #

    It makes your story very laughable, then.

    Tell me, please: it is true that U.S. people think that you canadians are communist just because you have a good public healthcare?
    I know this is offf topic.


  126. That_Susan December 6, 2014 at 20:07 #

    Well, I’m in the U.S. and I don’t see Canada as a communist country. I think the most successful economies are successful because they combine capitalism with some degree of socialism. Of course, socialism is just a watered down version of the communist ideals of thinking about the good of the group.

    The hard part about putting those ideals into action is that if the government has little to no respect for the rights of the individual in the first place, you end up with a nightmare like the People’s Republic of China or the former Soviet Union.

    When the rights of the individual are respected, you end up with a much more livable situation, such as the situation in Canada and to a lesser degree in the U.S. (we have some aspects of socialism but just much more watered down than in Canada).

    To my way of thinking, pure capitalism is like turning a bunch of toddlers loose in a roomful of toys and just letting them do whatever they want. The strongest and most aggressive will get all the toys, and the non-toilet trained toddlers will be taking a dump wherever they feel like it and not cleaning up.

    Capitalism tempered with socialism is like continuing to encourage the creative free play and exploration, while adding in some caring adults who will teach the toddlers to use their words with each other and take turns with the toys, and who will help them learn responsible toileting practices, kind of like how environmental agencies gently remind wealthy corporations that it’s not okay to make harmful chemical messes in poor countries like Mexico, or in poor communities like cancer alley in the U.S.

    And yes, I understand that wealthy corporations are run by adults and not toddlers — however, when those adults choose to act like their company’s bottom line is the only thing that they have a responsibility to care about, they create a need for someone else to police their activities and protect the vulnerable.

    At the same time, socialism or communism without capitalism is like forcing the toddlers to spend all their time in organized group activities with absolutely no free time to explore or create anything on their own. Now my experience in the early childhood field is showing. 🙂 We see the results of this extreme in the current reality wherein Chinese corporations are very good at copying but not so great at coming up with something totally new.

    I realize I’m going way off topic here. But in a sense, my views of communism and capitalism are very similar to my views of feminism and antifeminism: it’s in having the freedom to fully express both viewpoints that we can create a livable society. Of course, it’s pretty clear right now that feminists are more intent on silencing the opposition than antifeminists are.

    Both groups have a very wide range of supporters, too: there are the political feminists who want to fight against true equality for men and silence everyone who disagrees with them, and at the other end of the spectrum, there are the egalitarian men and women who embrace the feminist label without really even thinking about the true actions of the political feminists.

    And within antifeminism, there are the true egalitarians (like JB) who simply want every individual to be free to pursue his or her own dreams while enjoying equal protection under the law, and at the other end of the spectrum, there are the “dark enlightenment-ish” folks who seem to feel that only white males have the God-given, or evolution-endowed, capacity to benefit from freedom, and that women and non-whites can only know true happiness by living in subjection to the benign rule of a white male aristocracy.

    I say, let’s all just keep talking and listening to each other and we all might learn something. I’m glad for every forum that allows diverse individuals the room to engage in a free and respectful debate. JB has created one such forum, and I thank her for it!


  127. paulvzo December 6, 2014 at 20:59 #

    Another great post by That_Susan. I concur 100%. History shows that a well regulated, democratic capitalism confers more benefits on more people than any other system tried to date. The return to Gilded Age, dog eat dog capitalism has littered the landscape with people holding three jobs with no time to get an education, or just pay the rent.

    BTW, those CEO’s you mention may have pubic hairs, but they are not adults. They are as greedy and self-centered as any toddler. Especially the ones comparing penis size……..


  128. wager December 6, 2014 at 21:16 #

    Some guy should pen an article saying ‘Men have a right to expect women to give men at least a handjob on the first date. And there’s nothing ungentlemenly about that.”

    See how feminists respond.


  129. paulvzo December 6, 2014 at 21:29 #

    I knew a particular woman for over thirty years. We started out as, well, sex partners, no love, only friendship required. We were off and on over those decades. Laurie Jean had an MBA, was successful in the business world. A feminist success story.

    I was astounded, and am still amused at, her telling me that for most of her younger years she figured that if a man bought her dinner, she owed him a fuck. (Goddess bless ya!) Of course, she preselected her dates before accepting a dinner date as a desirable enough partner.

    The heck with a hand job!


  130. Mr T December 6, 2014 at 22:04 #

    when there is no money the problem is food
    when there is food , the problem is sex.


  131. wager December 7, 2014 at 06:30 #

    Wow, I just figured the cost of dinner was roughly equivalent to the market value of a handjob. Have I overestimated inflation? Hold on, I’ll go consult a hooker and an economist so I can find out what precise sexual act is equivalent to a dinner at olive garden for two.


  132. paulvzo December 7, 2014 at 12:04 #

    LOL! Not sure the Olive Garden is a good benchmark, though. Well, OK, maybe a hand job, yeah.


  133. Jack Strawb December 8, 2014 at 01:40 #

    “Olive Garden”?

    Good lord. Never mind sex, that’s the equivalent of “getting” to hold her hair out of her face while she vomits.


  134. Magnus December 8, 2014 at 09:42 #

    In Norway the idea of “man pays for the dates” is a little bit foreign. But I’m sure it happens here to.
    But from a principle standpoint I am very much against it.
    The point of a date is to get to know the other person, and not a free meal. But a lot of women seem to thing it’s the opposite.
    So splitting the bill, and keeping it cheap is the way to go. And if the guy decide that he is willing to pay, it should come as a surprise ,and maybe make you a little uncomfortable, not the other way around.

    That said, once you guys know each other, maybe a few dates in, then of course he can “treat you to something nice”, but that’s a sign that he is willing to invest time AND money in a girl he really likes. Why should anyone invest in a girl he don’t know, knowing so many girls out there are only interested in his ability to buy her food?


  135. Spaniard December 8, 2014 at 13:30 #

    The most capitalist countries on Earth such Switzerland, UK (the mother of capitalism), Germany, France, Canada… they have a good public healthcare.
    And in the summum of capitalism luxury, (Monaco), the main resources of the country (Formula 1, casino, tax haven) are managed by the State.


  136. Spaniard December 8, 2014 at 13:31 #

    So true.

    Should we make women a public property? (joke).


  137. Jon December 8, 2014 at 16:31 #

    Ashley this whole biological/traditional relationship thing you have going on in your head is pure fantasy. This appears NOWHERE in nature that I’m aware of. I mean, where in nature are the males “putting their money where there mouth is?” How absurd.

    What your “two cents” amounts to is nothing more than a princess complex. Victorian sensibilities run amok I’m afraid.


  138. Liam December 8, 2014 at 17:05 #

    I think you’re mistaken, Jon. In humans, the idea of women caring for the kids and taking care of the household has been around for a very long time, the idea of men being the providers.

    I think Ashley has a very good point that the feminists are trying to push against a rising tide, they’re pushing for something that SOUNDS good, but just isn’t.

    For instance, if you knew nothing at all about human biology, it might sound like it makes perfect sense to say “Hey, it’s not fair that only women get to have children, we should work to allow men equal rights to give birth to children if they so choose”, and then, still knowing nothing about biology, as we watch and see that the numbers do not change, get increasingly outraged because “society won’t allow men the freedom to gestate and give birth to babies”.

    There is a certain ingrained nature (whether deeply societally ingrained or biologically due to evolution, who can say?) that says men provide and women nurture.

    And I don’t have a problem with that, honestly… as long as you don’t try to deny half of it but insist the other is perfectly natural.

    So if you tell me that since I’m the guy I really should pay for the first date, that’s fine… as long as the next thing you say is “and as the woman, I should invite you over and cook dinner for you as the second date”. Because if my paying for you is to demonstrate my ability to provide for you, then your cooking for me is to demonstrate your ability to nurture me. And if it’s perfectly reasonable for you to expect that male provider nature is right and good and proper, then it’s just as valid for me to assume that women’s nurturing nature is right and good and proper.

    So for me, it’s not the assumption that men pay that rankles. It’s the assumption that men pay, but that women have no responsibilities and should not be tied down to societal expectations of gender. Either we’re doing away with societal expectations of gender or we are not, we’re not doing away with them when they impose on you but keeping them when they benefit you.

    Liked by 1 person

  139. Billl Sanders December 8, 2014 at 20:50 #

    another great article from a woman who GETS IT…


  140. Jon December 9, 2014 at 16:24 #

    There is nothing biological about men paying for first dates and women making sammitches on the second date. There ARE differences between men and women for sure. However, the housewife/provider tradition has no basis in biology at all. This is all regrettable Victorian social engineering at work.

    Might I suggest that in the modern world the traditional role of “nurturer” and housewife is of very little value. Modern convenience has simply stripped away the value of running a household. There’s nothing to do. Might I further suggest that it’s this economic dynamic, not feminism, that is forcing women into paid work. It’s a necessity. Not that financial dependence was ever a great life strategy, but today it’s completely idiotic. It’s bad for women and it’s bad for men.

    I find the idea that a grown man needs to be “nurtured” simply absurd. Could you be searching for any harder for a justification of the housewife? This is benevolent sexism at its worst.


  141. That_Susan December 9, 2014 at 17:16 #

    One helpful development for those nurturing women, and also men, who’d like to be able to contribute economically to the household while still being as available as possible to their young children — is the Internet.

    I work from home giving telephone English lessons to business people all over the world, and I’m able to set my own hours based on what’s best for my family. One of my colleagues who has small children works a few hours early in the morning before her children wake up, and there are actually about as many different work schedules as there are people in this job.

    I need to work a lot more hours because I’m the sole financial provider now — but my children are also 14 and 9, and my husband doesn’t work now so he’s available to them all the time. I still really like having absolutely no commute, and being able to start very early in the morning and finish relatively early in the afternoon, take care of housework and hang out with my homeschooling 9-year-old during my long breaks in the morning and afternoon, and be finished soon after my 14-year-old arrives home from school.

    There are lots of other people working from home doing some form of customer service, and since there’s more of a demand for that during evenings or weekends, it can work out very nicely for a couple with small children if there’s one parent working the classic nine-to-five, Monday though Friday schedule, because the secondary provider can just work during times when the primary provider can be home with the kids.

    And JB has already mentioned the awesome opportunities there are for people with much-in-demand domestic skills like making and decorating wedding cakes, and doing highlights for hair. These are jobs that can provide you with a big financial return for a relatively small investment of time, if you can take the stress. Being a girl myself, and knowing how tied up in knots we can get about our hair and our weddings, I’d personally rather give English lessons. It’s more fun and less stressful for me, even though it doesn’t pay me hundreds of dollars for just a few hours of work.

    I think emotional, physical, and intellectual nurturing will always have a lot of value for both men and women, and especially for growing children. The key is to work out an arrangement wherein those two things — nurture and economic contributions — don’t have to be mutually exclusive. I’m very thankful to Tim Berners-Lee and all the other men who’ve been so instrumental in bringing a great deal of industry back into the home. It’s this kind of flexibility that can create families with happy fathers, mothers, and children, and do away with situations where some parents feel like they’re always working and never getting to see their kids, and others feel like they’re always tied to the house without any opportunity to build a career. We really can have it all, to some degree.

    Liked by 1 person

  142. Ryan December 11, 2014 at 03:51 #

    Unfortunately, she doesn’t realize that he was also weeding her out by not paying. Nothing says entitled more than expecting free things because you have a vagina. She didn’t respond to his email, but he saved himself a hell of a lot of pain by testing her. Yes, we test women too. Unfortunately, most women expect they don’t need improvement, and they are so used to men coming to them that when they are tested, they are both completely oblivious and unaware that their lack of communication about what they want is simply holding them back, not helping them get the best mate.


  143. pintdote December 20, 2014 at 00:28 #

    I’ve never had a man LET me pay for my own half. Sometimes I left the tip, but even then, it more often than not created a mini-fight where they did not want to let me do it. It’s not something I want to argue because I’m always like, “Is he going to think I’m trying to emasculate him or…”

    I think for some people, they express positive feelings through money/gifts. Other people, like myself, money is just a way to get food. Or if they’ve had some bad experiences, it might be a way to test if the other person is using them. So, yeah, that girl is probably a monster, but I feel like the issue of who pays on a date is always a little bit awkward and complicated because the check means different things to different people.


  144. Black Knight December 22, 2014 at 21:24 #

    No man should have to see that. Sorry that you did. 😦


  145. Jack Strawb March 5, 2015 at 06:26 #

    Pretty much. The U.S. has a spectacularly low political I.Q. If the government is involved in something, then that something is “socialist.” Anything oppressive is “fascist.” Anything resembling universal health care is “communist.” All egalitarian movements are the work of “cultural marxists,” primarily because it has the “spooky” word “marxists” in it.


  146. Jack Strawb March 5, 2015 at 06:40 #

    Well said. The one other thing women seem to really value is having at least some reason to believe that you aren’t a violent lunatic. I’ve noticed women are far, far more receptive to being approached once they’ve seen you around. I wrote my master’s thesis in a coffee shop and noticed that women were often cold until they’d noticed me hanging out something like three or four times. Just that much familiarity made a great deal of difference in how the first conversation proceeded, and later discussion of how we got to know each other verified it.


  147. Ken April 6, 2015 at 02:49 #

    I saw the original article and thought: What the hell am I reading?! Fortunately I came across this, it was pretty much exactly what I was thinking! I am in my mid 20s and date a fair bit. It sadly no longer surprises me when I go on dates and the girl expects to pay for absolutely nothing. On a fair number of these I do not even receive a “thank you” after buying them drinks.

    After dating for a while I realised the girls who do not pay anything expect future dates to be the same. Usually they do not pay because they are seeing other guys at the same time and I presume this is too expensive for them. They may also not fancy you so try and get as many free drinks out of you as they don’t plan on seeing you again.

    However there are some really amazing girls out there (around 15%-20%) who will split the cost of a date. When they do this it shows they have a high interest in you and they are not users. These are the girls I have the most fun with (not just becase they pay) and quite frankly the only girls I ever ask out on second dates.

    For everyone out there in the dating game (male and female) I hope you find that special someone you deserve.



  1. Why men should NEVER pay for the first date | Manosphere.com - December 2, 2014

    […] Why men should NEVER pay for the first date […]


  2. 12 Ways to Spot A Feminist | judgybitch - March 5, 2015

    […] section on dating, because feminists will never offer to pay, and in fact will sulk and throw a hissy if men treat them as […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: