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

[mneme]

I think "the guy pays because he has a penis" is a meme that deserves a quick, painless death. "The guy (or gal, or the person who asked for the date) pays and expects sex in return"...that's not a date; that's a financial transaction.

The rest of it...I've moved over time from doing everything strictly dutch (date or not, but there was a period where drcpunk and I were passing a symbolic half-penny back and forth to aid in splitting the cheque) to mixing up a split and a treat (and tending to let treat move around between trading off, "the person who can afford to pays," (of which "I'll treat because I want to eat out well tonight and I want to hang out with you, so don't worry about it" is one variation)).

Regarding power dynamics...you can actually take those either way (regarding paying, anyway; I think it's harder to sexualize ordering in a fashion other than "the dom orders"), so I see no reason to have power dynamics induce such an unfairness in a relationship I'm in. To consensually take advantage of an existing reason for one person to pay, sure (although that's a minefield, for I hope obvious reasons; similar to the distinction between "I'm hurting you because I want to" and "I'm hurting you to punish you for failing a test that you were rigged to fail").

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

I'm not the only one with the half penny? My ex and I used to trade a verbal one... until I actually bought him a ($5) half cent reproduction piece at Colonial Williamsburg. :)

As to the rest of what you say, I get that, but since I am chronically the person who can afford less, I have qualms about being habitually treated in terms of what that does to our dynamics in the long term.

It's not so much power per se, in the sense of them saying "I pay so I decide," as that I never want the list of significant things I get out of a relationship to include quality of life level-ups, lest I ever end up trading off emotional/intrinsic downsides against material/extrinsic upsides in my own head. I never want to think, even for a second, of staying with someone who makes me unhappy with their words because they make me happy with their wallet.

So treats that are largely trivial and could be afforded by me if I cared enough (coffee), infrequent (birthday), or not that important to me (I'm buying you this ticket to the baseball game because I know you would never spend your own money on sports and I want your company) are all fine, but while individual instances of "I want a better dinner/vacation than is in your budget, it's on me this time" sound harmless, if that became the ongoing dynamic of one of my relationships, I would worry a bit. Because the chances of it ever going the other way are slight at best.

[mneme]

Nope! We used British pence pieces (never mind that they were worth about 2.5 cents) until drcpunk lost both of the two we had left over from the 1995 Worldcon.

Regarding affording less...it depends, really. I'm functionally supporting drcpunk these days as I'm employed and she isn't, but that's basically a matter of practicality, and we'd both prefer if she were employed. Plus, our relationship was very solid long before this became an issue. It's complicated, I think, but I think central is that the relationship dynamic was well established long before I had to decide whether to support her.

It's a little different with pocketnaomi, as I'll tend to cover one good-sized meal at some point during my visit (and, of course, cover my own transportation, hardly a minor expense). OTOH, my visits are infrequent (once or twice a year) and she'll typically make a point of taking me out for a meal at some point even if it isn't -as- nice a meal as the one I cover. I guess this counts as "infrequent," though.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

*nodsnods* If I ever get to that kind of commitment, it would be different, I assume. Though I still think i'd have a much easier time supporting someone else -- emotionally at least -- than the other way around.