Writer's Block: Check, please!

[stakebait]

I strongly prefer Dutch treat.

I don't mind people offering to pay, especially if they're the one who proposed the date, but I really get uncomfy when they insist... it makes me feel indebted, which I don't like, especially when I don't even have any concrete sense of what my side of the transaction is and therefore have no idea if I'm willing to take on the obligation or when I've met it. It's nothing as crude as "put out" but it's not quite nothing, either.

It also makes me reluctant to order what I really want (if I suspect it might happen) or feel guilty for doing so (if they surprise me with it after the fact) for price reasons, which is also uncomfortable.

It also makes me reluctant to agree to any more dates if I'm not absolutely sure that I'll be romantically/sexually interested in them, since I am potentially wasting their money. (And their time, but I'm wasting my own time at the same rate.)

It also makes me worry about what this says about their gender expectations... I am not a traditionally feminine woman; a guy who insists on fulfilling the traditionally masculine role is probably going to be a bad match for me in both directions... we're going to clash when I want to do for myself/be independent, and we're going to clash again when I fail to live up to the female side of the bargain.

(If it wasn't for gendered reasons, it might feel different, but in my 22 years of dating it's never NOT been a guy explicitly saying he feels he should pay because he's the guy.)

As I get to know the person better and it feels more like a relationship I do loosen up on this a little ... there can be more "you get this one I'll get the next one" once you're sure there's going to BE a next one, and concepts like "I treat you for a special occasion" or "I'll pay more because I have more disposable income than you" start to come into play.

That's not to say I've never let a guy pay. I have... three times. Because you get to a point where you're pretty much have to arm wrestle them for it, and it's undignified. But it's not a plus in my book.


[Error: unknown template qotd]

Comments

[roadnotes.livejournal.com]

I tend to operate on the "the person who asks out/sets the date pays" theory, or the dutch treat theory. I am very uncomfortable with "I pay because I have the penis," or "I pay, and you put out."

"I am not a traditionally feminine woman; a guy who insists on fulfilling the traditionally masculine role is probably going to be a bad match for me in both directions... we're going to clash when I want to do for myself/be independent, and we're going to clash again when I fail to live up to the female side of the bargain."

This, over and over again.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

Totally with you. Though I've never actually been out with someone who would subscribe to the put out theory. (thank goodness, since I find the idea that sex is a favor to them and not a mutual pleasure even creepier than the idea that dinner is a favor to me...)

I know they don't mean that, but that leaves my side of the bargain kind of flapping around in empty space. They pay and I... be grateful? Go out with them again? Give them a good review on Yelp? What? This is the closest I come to understanding the variant on fey lore that says fairies don't like you to say thank you.

I had one guy try to explain it to me that I was providing the good company. But it's insulting to him to imply that he does not provide equally good company to me... and if I thought he really did believe it was my job to entertain him while he just sat back and enjoyed it, I'd find that insulting to me.

[rikibeth.livejournal.com]

Well, the "pleasure of your company" meme evolved when it was rare for women to have significant financial resources of their own, so there wasn't a lot of opportunity for financial reciprocity. And "I am willing to devote financial resources to have your companionship on events we will both enjoy" is a pretty solid signal of interest, in those circumstances. Now that it can be presumed that both parties have independent means, the signal doesn't come out the same way, and acquires shades of ick.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

*nods* And in those days the marriage contract was one in which she was expected to cater to his wishes in exchange for his financial support. So a date in which he paid and she catered was a reasonable display-in-miniature of these skills, like an audition on both sides.

IMO any expenditure of scarce resources on either side is still a solid signal of interest. It's just that ignoring my clearly stated objection sends the meta-message "my interest is more important than your limits" and that does not even make me feel safe, let alone valued.

[rikibeth.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, attempting to override your objection is NOT ON. Offering to pay can be a nice gesture, but insisting over a stated objection? Gross.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

In the past I was not comfortable with "the person who asks" for myself, even though I was fine with it for others, because I knew that I seldom if ever asked, and partly for gendered reasons.

Not that I think women shouldn't, but knowing some men do think that was a disincentive, especially combined with feeling that it isn't a very subby act and the fact that, being a mostly het girl, I could get away with indulging my shyness and fear of rejection and still *have* dates, because the men have been socialized to ask.

However in the course of writing this I realized it's not as true as it used to be. I've asked several guys out recently.