Ok... but like... what king? In a traditional monarchy the monarchs primary source of income and sustenance was from the public. In which case- to “treat him like a king” in a historical sense- you’d have to use food stamps of tax payer money to fund the dinner. The Queen wasn’t a subject but a monarch as well, so she didn’t really “pay” for things for the king. In more modern times- rulers tend to have to foot certain personal expenses but still have some subsidized by the public- including presidents who often have chefs paid by the government but must pay for food themselves. So in that sense.... you could donate to a soup kitchen and then take him there...? That may be the closest analog?
If you’re treating him like a “king” like Elvis Presley- Elvis usually paid, and may well have also given you a Cadillac too. So I mean.... the analogy doesn’t really pencil out. At the end of the day- maybe do what works for your relationship. I know a guy who makes a little over $170k a year and his wife makes closer to $40k. He usually pays for dinner and other things. She makes his meals at home and does most of the house chores and is extremely thoughtful of him and his needs. That works for them because he makes money and doesn’t have time, she doesn’t make much but has free time- together it works and they both feel it’s fair and they are appreciated.
I know another couple where the wife makes good money and the husband barely works doin occasional small gigs. The husband rarely pays for things but takes care of house hold affairs and is a handy Guy. He built their dream home from the ground up with his labor and does any work or improvements to the house and she buys tools and materials. He maintains their properties and handles most of the shopping and the two of them split other chores. “50/50” isn’t about money- it’s about feeling appreciated and like you are in a fair partnership where your needs are met and the overall distribution and dispensation of tangible and non tangible benefits and responsibilities is something you can live with and or are happy with.
I totally agree with you. And there will always be different scenarios and situations. I do think that a lot of women still think that the guy in the relationship should pay for everything just because he’s a guy and ive always believed that was backwards thinking.
It’s certainly still the more common assumption that a man is or should pay- and regardless of gender it’s likely most prudent to teach all people to always be ready to pay for themselves or to decline whenever it isn’t explicit that one isn’t expected to pay. But social conventions are a two way street- a collective social bargain of majorities and between individuals. That is to say- we create them through standard and acceptance.
Traditionally western women little or no independent income- or in many cases rights including t some points even the rights to autonomy. We often forget that at one time not so Lon ago our values on women weren’t that far from many fundamentalist religions where women couldn’t be in public unescorted, be with a man alone who wasn’t family, choose her own suitors, own property, participate in physical activity, dress herself, work, speak in church or even speak her mind, etc. it used to be illegal for women to send and receive their own mail, and mail would need reviewed by a male family member before being corresponded.
Many “virtues” of “chivalry” and such codes of manners on how a man and woman should treat each other are traditions which carried over from those days even as the reason for them was moved from existence. Many of them are rooted in practical concerns of what women could or were allowed or thought able to do- and most find roots in some idea that women are weaker, less capable, or otherwise inferior and require such considerations. Of course- as things change the people who were alive under the “old system” don’t simply evaporate.
So even today you will find loving men and women who grew up in a time where things were very different. People get used to these behaviors as they live with them, they impart them in whole or some measure in their children because those are the ways they know the world to work. Those are the manners they know to be successful in the world and they want their kids to be successful as well. They also are often taken aback by newer ways. Someone who is used to a world where a man isn’t forward or speaks plainly to a woman may we’ll find it off putting or rude to encounter a man who does otherwise even if the manners of a time has changed- because that is what they know.
So many of these once somewhat practical things endured as a way to distinguish someone raised properly or of good character from a “bad egg.” At one point- as a matter of necessity if you wanted to date as a man you would pay- because the odds of your date having their own money or any measure of money were very slim.
In that same vein- our society focuses on a dynamic of men as suitors and women as the courted. That the man’s role is aggressor- it is he who asks her out, who makes the first moves, the first kiss, initiates most sexual encounters, tries to win her favor and show her that he is “worthy” of her time and attention. It is traditionally the man who proposes and who must buy the rings and who is supposed to get a suitably fancy ring to show his security and his devotion in material form.
This system was largely created by men of course- where suitors compete for the most attractive woman, since competition and the assets to leverage oneself were traditionally allowed to males, and females main roles were to be demure, provide children, and possibly to be judged by their domestic skills but mainly their beauty. So we have to look deeper at the issue and realize that in 2019 it is still very much the covenant between man and woman that the male be the pursuer, that the male be the one who must “win over” a woman’s attentions and fancies.
That it is still largely men who compete for a woman’s attention and in the “competition” between women for a man’s the dynamic is still very much one where the woman’s role is primarily to make herself more physically appealing than her contemporaries and wait for a man to notice her beauty and attempt to prove his worthiness against other men through displays of devotion and social standing- by showing her “what he an offer” because largely what she can offer is distilled to how she looks and how much headache or emotional trouble he experiences with her.
This is the part most important to men- but also to equality and changing gender dynamics. Men still do play their part. It is a persons choice to participate in a social system they disapprove of. The black people of the 1960’s were largely born into a system they did not like. It was not enough to complain or to wait for white people to change it. Those seeking change had to refuse to participate- and deal with those consequences. They had to refuse to agree to sit in the whites only sections and refuse to play the subservient role- they had to reject the conventions they had inherited and refuse to play the role society was expecting them to. (I’m not comparing the severity of this to civil rights- but the principals underneath are the same..)
That is to say that if men want change men cannot simply expect women to realize that they shouldn’t expect certain things. If you tell a person “this is the last time I let you borrow my clothes....” but then you continue to allow it- you are building an expectation. So if men do not want to be expected to pay- men must stop paying. And yes- men will likely lose dates because of this. But a world where we can make changes without consequences is a nice dream but a far off if ever reality.
If men want to change the dynamics of power etc. in dating, men need to start at home so to speak. The root as discussed is a combination of inherited decorum and a relationship where the man is the default initiator and one who must prove his worth. Ideally on the interests of equality- we wouldn’t “flip” this system and expect women to be solely responsible for these things- but a contract of mutual reciprocity would be formed socially in which actions would be met on equal grounds.
Instead of “chasing” so to speak- one would simply stand on the field with their hand out, and those interested would do the same in kind- this goes for introductions, sexual escalation, marriage, etc. but our very concept of romance is deeply rooted in antiquated ideas and for many this would be- off putting.
Even now many men and women would be uncomfortable with the woman proposing. Many women look forward to some romantic proposal from a man, to recieving their wedding ring, and many men believe that is the way it should be as well. The “proposer” in the position of power- the one “asking the question” usually is- is often defaulted to a male role.
In fact many women find it to be un attractive when a man acts in a way traditionally seen as non masculine. How many times could your boyfriend come home from work crying because his boss was mean to him before your libido was tanked? If a man shrugs and says “I don’t know- what do you want to do...” is that attractive to most women? Or is it more common that a man doing this would be seen as indecisive while if a guy told his friends his girlfriend had done that they’d all shrug and say “yeah. Mine too. That’s how women are...” we can see that subconsciously we associate certain behaviors with men and women- that things we see inherent to one gender are seen as negative to another.
How many men reading this have a female partner who they surprise by wearing lingerie? Like if it’s Valentine’s Day or the like- do you men order a special little lacey sheer number or a set of latex thigh highs and edible undies to bring to bed?
It’s often seen as a “gift” or “treat” or even obligation when a man receives sex from a woman he is with- but how common is the dynamic for a man to refuse sex to his partner punitively? How common is it for him to say without any humor and in all seriousness that he has decided that he’s going to really make his girls day by having sex with her when she comes home? As a man in a relationship- how often does one refuse sexual advances from a partner? Outside of scenarios like a rare injury or really bad emotional state- how often if a woman throws herself at you does a man say “not tonight...”?
So we see a clear dynamic where men push, and women arbitrate these efforts. That system was created through mutual social contract. Because men primarily push- you can generally count on them to do so. That means that if you rebuff an advance- there will be another at a time you are more receptive. Women do not traditionally push- and so men generally are aware that if they refuse an advance, there is no telling when the next one might be.
This created a power dynamic that defines the roles of not just the people in a single relationship- but through what is established as normal and expected based on repeated interactions with last partners- this conditions men and women to accept these roles as what is standard. In any deal, one must be willing to walk away without getting what one wants, or else one must be prepared to become the one who must give disproportionately for what they are after.
In layman’s terms- men have long objectified women- and as objects, men have imparted women with tremendous value. Consciously (such as Instagram models, sex workers, etc.) or subconsciously women as sentient beings are aware of this social value that’s been imparted upon them. A large part of the woman’s rights movement isn’t so much about “rights” in that sense but in the fact that many women do not want to have their primary social value be in their status as an object.
By rejecting a system which would have the losses tremendous power- but only be able to leverage that power through sex and sexuality- these women want to be able to wield power based on their character and actions independent of how valuable they are seen as mates or how well they play sexual power dynamic games with men. Because in a scenario where a woman’s power comes from leveraging sexual dynamics with men- any power she has is still coming to her through men and not of her own.
Now contrast that to the dynamic of men- who are granted inherent power and then expected to use that power to attract and keep women. You see? That is where this matter starts. The traditional role or male as suitor is because the man is expected to hold the power.
The displays of wealth and strength and social status and all that? The house and car and career and money and muscles and whatever else men tend to think it is women want? These things are ways that traditionally showed a woman a man’s power. Because the assumed social contract was that the woman would use her sexuality to control the man- thusly the power available to him would be under her control to her ends by proxy.
So paying for her food is just one of the ways a man was saying many things. He was “buying” an audience- a desirable woman could spend time with any suitor- or no suitor- she chooses- so comparatively which is more appealing, a free meal or a meal you have to pay for? See- that’s the push, chased relationship there. The one in which the man “wants.” He’s asking the woman to accept him- he’s a salesman who wants something. So if she’s laying she could pay to eat alone and not have the stress or possible annoyance of sitting across from a salesman all night.
But that’s not really how it works is it? A woman enjoys a good date as much as a man doesn’t she? A good date to a woman can be good conversation and laughs, interesting thoughts and novel experiences which even if she doesn’t fall in love she still goes home like from a play or evening at a friends feeling like it was time well spent.
And that’s telling there- it’s not as common a tradition for a male to pay for a female friend. If one man meets up with several women platonically he generally isn’t expected to pay for them all- and often times a woman will pay, drive herself, etc. to a platonic meeting with a man in order to help cement that it is in fact not romantically intended.
Clearly there is a wide spread and deep reaching social concept that these things do matter in some form- and deviating from such norms can often change a persons perceptions of an interaction or even cause confusion or upset- loss of affection etc. but we truly do get treated the way we ask others to treat us. No individual man or woman can change what others of their gender do- but those of the opposite gender will base their general expectations of romantic experiences based upon their interactions with previous individuals or off the related anecdotes of others.
So if men want change then men must stop whoring themselves out. The desire to land a woman’s affections- the desire for sex- the knowledge that as a man there are other men you must stand out above in order to be noticed or deemed “worthy” comparatively, often leads men to behave in ways where they “push” and adopt the traditional role and behaviors of a “man.” But- you can’t change these dynamics by participating in them.
If as a man you take on the mantle handed you by society, all you do is reinforce the perception that that is how men behave or should be expected to behave. Taking on the established conventions of male female dynamics will generally see one having more luck in dating- and eschewing them will generally lead to social awkwardness and rejection. However that’s the decision to be made. That’s the classic sell outs dilemma.
It’s almost always easier to follow a prescribed path within existing systems to achieve a desired result. In fact- for all but the most persistent, most skilled, and most lucky, it may often be impossible to reach a goal any other way. But if one despises the system through which the goal is to be reached- one must make the determination wether or not and to what degree one is willing to compromise their principal for results.
It’s most common to find that those things that people claim to matter to them or those things they’ll often get upset about are not such a big deal to them when they are faced with condoning them for a reward or rejecting them and not getting the reward. So a man who will compromise his beliefs or dignity for a date or sex is a man who is part if the problem. Of course people may speak and think negatively of a man who refuses to play by the unspoken rules- we’ve seen this happen to women as women’s rights have opened more female minds to the ideas that they don’t have to play the roles they’ve been handed.
A sexually adventurous or expressive or aggressive woman is still most often labeled a slut. A woman who likes dating and meeting new men and having new sexual partners and isn’t interested in traditional female roles of weighing suitors and sticking to one is often seen poorly.
Women who do not want children or to care for grown men or to get made up etc are still often seen negatively. Women who put their careers or their goals ahead of behaviors that would let them “find/keep a man” and who refuse to laugh at dumb jokes they don’t think are funny, refuse to coddle male egos or stroke them, who ask for more of a man then simply he pay for meals and buy her things and tell her she is pretty- are often labeled as bitches.
And if you refuse to take the traditional male roles and part women- even these very same women- may label you. If you refuse to be monogamous (and tell them upfront) or reserve the rights to have your sexual needs fulfilled not just by them if you do not feel fulfilled you’ll likely be labeled as a dog of some sort. If you don’t suffer what you see as feminine behaviors and you refuse to accommodate or tolerate traditionally female traits and behaviors you may be called all sorts of things. If you aren’t sexually aggressive and aren’t the one to initiate and to push for escalation of contact or to propose marriage etc you may be called names- she might even think you are homosexual because you don’t seem to want sex.
But.... if billions of guys do that for many generations it becomes normal. It becomes expected. And if we start small- if we start by simply refusing to wear the mantle and only agreeing to give out time and affections to women who respect that, then all the rejection and ill will is worth it because that’s how. New covenant and new dynamic can be formed. Because many modern women won’t consider it such a bad thing that a man speak to them as equals- that he call her on what he feels is her “bullshit” and she can do the same for him.
That you’re as interested in her career and her finances and prospects and plans and goals for her future as traditionally women have been to men. That you care as much about her credit as she does yours, that you as a man recognize that through birth you were given power you don’t want. She as a woman the same- and you both agree to relinquish that power and take on a new dynamic in which the power no longer is only expressed through these antiquated systems but in an equal fashion where each gender has the ability to directly leverage their power without the need for games.
And that’s where we end it. Games. Most people like playing games. Romance itself is sort of a game. It’s not generally defined as romantic to see a woman and say “I find you attractive and sexually arousing. I’d like to have sex with you, and in the process get to know you and see if we can get along well and have mutually constructive goals and lifestyles.”
But when you approach a woman you don’t know who you just saw and try and pick her up- that’s what’s going down. Everyone knows it. “Hi, you seem interesting” or whatever bullshit? What’s interesting about her that you got from 20 feet away without likely hearing her speak? It’s interesting how she fills her clothes. Just actually think about that for a moment. The traditional “pick up” and the ways most men attempt to flirt with women or vice versa? That’s not how you generally behave. Most people do not walk up to people on the street for no reason and compliment them or strike up conversations based on some random visible aspect of themselves.
It’s a clear signal that you think they’re physically appealing but it’s weird to just say that you want to find out of their personality looks as good as they do and see if you can bang or fall in love, or a little of both. If you tried to pick someone up on this site without a selfie you at least are doing so based off the aspects of them you have gotten to know as a person- a genuine evolution of Miata interest and compatibility.
But that is a far cry from hoping there’s compatibility that can form because you think they’re hot or they drive a nice car or are rich or whatever else. So a good deal of the time the dating things and meeting people thing is already slanted. A big part of the process is obfuscation and controlling variables.
The fundamental process is rooted in getting to know a person but the whys of the reasoning that you chose them of all people who get to know are underneath the surface- plain as day but still ignored in general because it’s socially awkward to explore it too far. And in romance- the feeling is the thing that matters- and the feeling isn’t fueled by logic or any other clear force.
The social conventions of dating and romance exist because through personal and societal trial and error those methodologies have been found to have the greatest and broadest chance of capturing those spirits of “romance.” If you want to have sex and then watch some horrifying and repugnant thing, or you throw up or whatever (assuming that isn’t your kink-) chances are for one or more invoked the “mood” will be gone. But.. we know that a human beings genitals can be manually stimulated to at least function sexually in most cases. So you’re physically capable and the hormonal responses are more or less the same- but this concept of “mood” is one in romance as well.
It is generally somehow less romantic to most of a date pulls out coupons- where logically that’s understandable, practical, and likely beneficial to all involved. Yet- there are any number of occurrences of actions which while seemingly small can shatter a romantic mood. Our concept of romance is however largely based in our social understanding of romance, expectations we’ve built over a lifetime through exposure to concepts of romance, and an instinctive part of our being which responds to more primal instincts.
We can endeavor to rise above instinct- but no matter how evolved we are there are things which trigger irrational reactions in us. Fear is a perfect response to this as there is no reason whatsoever to feel fear in the case of something like watching a movie. Not only is it fiction- but it’s in a tv. Your mind knows what is in the tv cannot manifest in your living room and yet....
I know that as a culinary creation McDonald’s fries are garbage. I know that they are not very conducive to a healthy and balanced diet. I also know that for less money I could make more food at home. But... the combination of simple things like salt and the flavors and smells used are designed to appeal to the primitive parts of my brain that helped ancestors survive when nutrition was sporadic and sparse. The salts and fats and high calories trigger responses in the brain. My past experiences and childhood impart a fondness and upon triggering of memories remind me of associated positive feelings surrounding the consumption of said fries that makes my reptile brain equate the fries to being happy.
I can fight these impulses with my higher functions but there is a degree of emotional dissatisfaction in doing so, and there is a primitive satisfaction in succumbing to them even if my higher brain is disappointed at my lack of control and poor decision making, and aware of the extra time at the gym those fries cost me.
But I will, if I live at least another year, most certainly eat McDonald’s fries again even knowing all that. Because despite knowing it, Those feelings will get to me. So largely, out ability to change these dynamics relies upon our self discipline and our ability to be both self aware of our feelings and the underlying roots, as well as be able to reconcile them and accept that we have made a conscious choice to be above instinct.
All in all- man and women play out parts in determining what is considered convention in society, so for men to make change in gender dynamics, men must be willing to make changes in themselves and their own lives even if those changes are difficult and potentially incumber or prevent them from achieving certain goals. Those who come after us are the ones who get to enjoy any fruits of our labors without having sacrificed to achieve them, but they also must deal with the consequences of our imperfections. Here we are now dealing with the legacies of those before us, and it’s our choice to complain but still pass them on, or to sacrifice to make change that our dependents may end up cursing us for anyway.
I don't date guys (let not talk about that) but whenever I hang out with my girls, we either spit the bill/pay for what we call/ switch to pay/ pay for everything all because you feel like it. Different people are comfortable with different things.
The funny part about me is... I'm horrible.
I sometimes just text someone to hang out and straightforward saying they're going to pay for everything.
My mother was shook when I told her this (she believes asker will be the payer)
The better part is that my friends always agree.
Idk maybe they think hanging out with me is a privilege.
.
Anyways, when it comes to money, be obvious, be straightforward. If you want something, speak up or you will soon enough feel like you're being used/superior/inferior in the relationships and that's just poisonous.
The funny part about me is... I'm horrible.
I sometimes just text someone to hang out and straightforward saying they're going to pay for everything.
My mother was shook when I told her this (she believes asker will be the payer)
The better part is that my friends always agree.
Idk maybe they think hanging out with me is a privilege.
.
Anyways, when it comes to money, be obvious, be straightforward. If you want something, speak up or you will soon enough feel like you're being used/superior/inferior in the relationships and that's just poisonous.