5. In a traditional dating arrangement, men pay for dates because:
•They then retain control of the events – where to go, what to see, etc.
•There is the expectation that they will get something in return, i.e. usually sex, at some point, if not immediately
In addition to the obvious sexist and abusive implications of this statement, there are equally – but often overlooked – negative implications for the man.
a. This argument assumes the man wants control of the events. What if he is a man who, like myself, greatly prefers negotiating the events of a date on a mutually equitable basis, on a ‘level playing field’, so to speak? What if, like myself, he is incredibly paranoid about being manipulated into having the illusion of control, while in fact being pushed this way and that by a woman who simply is not being above-board and honest about her agenda?
b. Having such control is, I might point out, an incredible burden to place on men, or even to allow men. If the woman is not in the interaction as a result of a fair degree of ‘free will’, then the interaction is, from my perspective, profoundly oppressive and dysfunctional for both parties. And any man who really want that kind of control is far more insecure and out-of-touch with his deeper needs than anything I want to manifest or be around. Not my need! Not now, not ever! I cosmologically only have control over my own life, if any at all (and maybe only control over how I respond to events in my life), but definitely no control over other people – that’s a profound illusion, if there ever was one! The only “control over others” that anyone has is control that the other person allows us.
c. What if the fellow doesn’t want sex in return? What if he simply wants to enjoy a pleasant evening with this female – is there the inherent demand that he has to have sex with the woman? (For a wider discussion of this, see the following essay on Equitable Sex.) And then, as such, if he only wants to enjoy their mutual interaction, is he still expected to pay for the date, when the enjoyment is more or less equal?
6. If a woman has children, shouldn’t a man pay for the date or pay for the greater portion, since the woman has to pay for baby-sitters or other expenses that are a powerful drain on her budget?
I suppose that, if a man wanted to date women with children, that would be an entirely relevant argument. But for me, it is somewhat of a moot point. Most men date women with children because on some level, at least they have the desire to eventually settle down with this woman and have a family (or they should at least assume the woman has such a potential interest in mind). I don’t want children, either produced by mutual union with a woman or her own by another man; having a family is not my personal objective. As a result, dating women with children is simply not something I do. I see little point in investing emotional energy into a relationship that ultimately will lead to a place that I find inappropriate to my personal comfort or safety. No matter how delightful a woman may be otherwise, her desire for a family or her desire to have me be the father of her present children is simply not something I wish to engage in, now or ever.
However, I would ask something in return, on behalf of couples where children are involved: if the woman was single and the man had children, should the woman be expected to pay for the date or the greater portion, since the man would have to pay for baby-sitters or other expenses? And if this isn’t the case, then there isn’t a “common rule” for both males and females, i.e. that whomever doesn’t have children should foot the majority of the bill on behalf of the person who does have children. Failing this, the rule becomes, again, a double standard: one rule for men and quite a different, less oppressive rule for women.
Mariposa Men’s Wellness Institute was founded in 2001
to help men become emotionally healthy.
Equitable Dating
Page 3
