American Women and Getting Paid

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by Camille

Instead of berating Leah for what she expects a man to bring to bring to the table why aren't people (that disagree so profusely with what she says) asking what she will bring to table that she sees of equal value? I think that's reasonable. Of course, you may disagree in what Leah perceives as value but aren't you even curious to see if it would affect your opinion?

C

It's not so much what she offers as her apparent lack of respect for what he offers other than the financial. I take for granted that she brings significant value to the relationshp, in the eyes of her lover. I also assume that she feels he should respect her for those non-financial contributions. Is her lover also making non-financial contributions to the relationship? Although those other factors may be a prerequisite to a relationship, they apparently do not suffice for her respect of him.

To put it another way, it suggests either that: (a) the gentleman must always bring more to the relationship than the lady; or (b) the lady's non-financial contributions always should be more valued by him than the gentleman's non-financial contributions are valued by her. Both seem (to me) rooted very heavily in antiquated gender stereotypes, where the man always had the wealth and power and almost inevitably dated or courted below his socio-economic class. I enjoyed Pride and Prejudice, but it doesn't portray my life. I almost always dated social and financial equals, or even (slight?) superiors.

I don't criticize that perspective per se. It may accurately reflect relative value for the relationships she's been in. Same for Naomi and Lina. And I am not arguing an individual case, that my non-financial contributions are the equal of theirs. I have no idea, but assume they're not for the sake of argument. I just wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who valued what I contributed (other than financially) to be less than her value contributed, and insufficient for her respect, as an absolute rule. But she and I are not going to have a relationship anyway, so no harm, no foul.

If it's expressed on a case-by-case basis, or predicated on a significant imbalance in resources -- not as big of a deal. Then it's more about ability to pay than respect. The same, perhaps, if it's expressed as a social convention that a lady enjoys rather than a requirement, or something without which she cannot respect him.

Again, I have generally followed social conventions in this matter. But something that sounds like an absolute right or entitlement bothers me. It's a lady's attitude toward me that matters most, not the money. It seems degrading, perhaps a minor version of what women feel when they talk about treated as a sex object. An absolutist attitude seems to be treating men as money objects.

[atlcomedy]

If I was a woman, I'd be insulted by the original post.

Implicit in it is that the woman is bringing something of value to the relationship. Merely her presence or polite conversation is a joke.

Is she offering sex? If that is the implication, I'd be insulted.

Is she going to do his laundry? Clean his house? Cook him dinner? Again, if I was a woman I'd be insulted.

That's not to say that a "user" can't eat and drink for free just because she shows up and relies on the generousity of gentlemen with an old fashioned sense of manners and appropriateness. But let's frame it it for what it is...the headline: "Ladies, learn to use men and never lift your wallet!" Don't try to make it sound noble or empowering.

[Lovely Victoria]

Originally Posted by Black Sedan

If you are aware that's what the situation is, then so be it. Don't expect me to understand how that can be enough. I pity the men and women who aren't taking advantage of this life to feel more.

That was a joke, my dear. Apparently, the smilies arent' very effective communicators.

[Lovely Victoria]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

If I was a woman, I'd be insulted by the original post.

Implicit in it is that the woman is bringing something of value to the relationship. Merely her presence or polite conversation is a joke.

Is she offering sex? If that is the implication, I'd be insulted.

Is she going to do his laundry? Clean his house? Cook him dinner? Again, if I was a woman I'd be insulted.

That's not to say that a "user" can't eat and drink for free just because she shows up and relies on the generousity of gentlemen with an old fashioned sense of manners and appropriateness. But let's frame it it for what it is...the headline: "Ladies, learn to use men and never lift your wallet!" Don't try to make it sound noble or empowering.

I have to say, I was slightly insulted when I first read the original post. I'm by no means a feminist, but I did (and still do) work very hard to get to where I am in life. i.e. I did not sleep by way up the career ladder.

I haven't dated in my civvie life in a long while, but when I did/do, I do not limit myself to someone who can afford to pay for everything. I am perfectly happy with a Dostoevsky type who can offer other non-currency related stimulated. I admit that life is easier with money (especially for someone who grew up poor), but as the cliche goes, money does not buy happiness.

I'd rather have a man show me his respect by appreciating my company. I'd always choose a poor fella who genuinely appreciates my company than a pompous ass who takes me to Per Se. (This is just an example, I'm not saying being genuine and rich are mutually exclusive.)

Originally Posted by Camille

Instead of berating Leah for what she expects a man to bring to bring to the table why aren't people (that disagree so profusely with what she says) asking what she will bring to table that she sees of equal value? I think that's reasonable. Of course, you may disagree in what Leah perceives as value but aren't you even curious to see if it would affect your opinion?
C

I agree with this Camille. However, there isn't a one-size-fits all formula as to what one brings to the table. I would expect that what one brings to the table is unique for each situation/ relationship. But I wholly agree with your reasoning.

[Guest083011]

Originally Posted by Lovely Victoria

takes me to Per Se. (This is just an example, I'm not saying being genuine and rich are mutually exclusive.).

I want someone to take ME to Per Se.

[Lovely Victoria]

Originally Posted by SR Only

I want someone to take ME to Per Se.

Tell you what - if you could muster a divine inspiration to get a resy at Per Se this evening, we'll go dutch

[Guest083011]

Originally Posted by Lovely Victoria

Tell you what - if you could muster a divine inspiration to get a resy at Per Se this evening, we'll go dutch

That's why God created "speed dial."

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

I am dating someone for few months now. EVERY time we get in/out of his car he opens the car door for me. Yes, he walks around the car, open the door, helps me in and walks back to driver's site. Same but in reverse when we get to our destination.

Does he do it because I am incapable? Noop. I have had to open car doors all on my own.

He is as american as american pie. I am eastern european to core. Where I come from, it is sign of respect. For him - it is small gesture that allows him to be a Gentleman he is.

Lina

I get it.... It is all about you!


You do realize that if women had all the $, they would have to pay. Broke fuckers can not pay! Damn.

That said , an equal spilt of money/resources would mean an equal split when paying ( or should in theory). A much nobler goal IMHO. Can you grasp that concept?


You want stupid examples, I'll give you stupid examples: I built and sold a 3+million dollar home to a couple with two kids. The husband could not afford the home, the wife could. They bought it on her income, not his. But she just started making a million bucks.....he made good money and supported the family but she started a business 7 years into their marriage and now their lifestyle is dominated by her income. Something that you can not seem to wrap your head around. A woman paying the bill(s)!I see nothin wrong with it. He makes 300k btw. Not shabby but it won't get you in my neighborhood.

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

If I was a woman, .

atl....if you were a woman we'd all be fuc'd!

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

I remember being in NYC out with my polyamorous friends from this city and i invited them all for dinner. All of them have been male. One of them told me then that this is a really strange thing for a woman to do in the USA. Is that really so? That men are not getting invited like that?

A woman inviting out a man, let alone paying for it, happens very, very rarely in the US if there is any hint of a romantic or sexual aspect to it.

In a business context, or between friends without a romantic or sexual aspect, that's relaxed a bit. Sometimes women invite men. Sometimes the person who issued the invitation pays, sometimes they split the bill, sometimes the man pays.

It's an awkward dance at times because of all of the possible hidden meanings. E.g., if a female business colleague and I go out to lunch, I wouldn't pick up the check (unless there were some other reason or we were taking turns picking up the check) because I want to avoid giving the impression that I'm interested in her that way and making her feel uncomfortable. On the other hand, if a woman invites a male friend, she might insist on paying to avoid his misunderstanding her interest.

I've always understood the conventional wisdom to be that in the US we're more hung up about these things than people are in Europe. It wouldn't surprise me.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Lovely Victoria

I have to say, I was slightly insulted when I first read the original post. I'm by no means a feminist, but I did (and still do) work very hard to get to where I am in life. i.e. I did not sleep by way up the career ladder.

I haven't dated in my civvie life in a long while, but when I did/do, I do not limit myself to someone who can afford to pay for everything. I am perfectly happy with a Dostoevsky type who can offer other non-currency related stimulated. I admit that life is easier with money (especially for someone who grew up poor), but as the cliche goes, money does not buy happiness.

I'd rather have a man show me his respect by appreciating my company. I'd always choose a poor fella who genuinely appreciates my company than a pompous ass who takes me to Per Se. (This is just an example, I'm not saying being genuine and rich are mutually exclusive.)

Totally agree, similar here. What bothers me are women that sleep themselves up the career ladder and then pretend they got jobs because they are so smart (lol), and don`t admit it.
What bothers me are women dating rich men and taking advantage of them or wives being financially dependent and needing a "caretaker" while at the same time looking down on honest escorts who at least state in their homepage what and who they are.
For me an authentic escort is a better person than a dependent wife or a "career ladder twat" :-).

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Chevalier

A woman inviting out a man, let alone paying for it, happens very, very rarely in the US if there is any hint of a romantic or sexual aspect to it.

In a business context, or between friends without a romantic or sexual aspect, that's relaxed a bit. Sometimes women invite men. Sometimes the person who issued the invitation pays, sometimes they split the bill, sometimes the man pays.

It's an awkward dance at times because of all of the possible hidden meanings. E.g., if a female business colleague and I go out to lunch, I wouldn't pick up the check (unless there were some other reason or we were taking turns picking up the check) because I want to avoid giving the impression that I'm interested in her that way and making her feel uncomfortable. On the other hand, if a woman invites a male friend, she might insist on paying to avoid his misunderstanding her interest.

I've always understood the conventional wisdom to be that in the US we're more hung up about these things than people are in Europe. It wouldn't surprise me.

That was my feeling.

Nevertheless, some men have no problem screwing women (escorts) for free without offering them legitimate or "first class" relationships (which means anything other than being a secret or a second class citizen next to a wife. That is what i found interesting in the US. Sometimes i witnessed escort - client relationships go private without any "real" change other than the client not paying anymore because the escort was in love. :-(.

In europe if a man requires a woman to be a secret and/or any other form of non-legitimate relationship it is normal that a man comes up financially for the drawback of his requirements (for example not being able to provide a full relationship with holidays, veto-rights and what not - anything that is not really consensually poly ).
I would never degrade a person that way and find it cool to not pay money for it ;-). No matter if love is there or not. Its a simple matter of respect!

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Chevalier

A woman inviting out a man, let alone paying for it, happens very, very rarely in the US if there is any hint of a romantic or sexual aspect to it.

In a business context, or between friends without a romantic or sexual aspect, that's relaxed a bit. Sometimes women invite men. Sometimes the person who issued the invitation pays, sometimes they split the bill, sometimes the man pays.

It's an awkward dance at times because of all of the possible hidden meanings. E.g., if a female business colleague and I go out to lunch, I wouldn't pick up the check (unless there were some other reason or we were taking turns picking up the check) because I want to avoid giving the impression that I'm interested in her that way and making her feel uncomfortable. On the other hand, if a woman invites a male friend, she might insist on paying to avoid his misunderstanding her interest.

I've always understood the conventional wisdom to be that in the US we're more hung up about these things than people are in Europe. It wouldn't surprise me.

From what I can tell, particularly for younger people, the whole dinner or dinner & a show as an initial part of courtship or dating is a lost art form. Kids go out in groups and hookup if they are so inclined.

Sure established couples dine together and do things together, but at that point in the relationship there is less awkwardness when the check arrives.

And, yes, in professional or business affairs the norms of your company or industry trump any traditional gender roles as it relates to finances. I'm still of the belief that there still is room to be a gentleman and do small things like holding a door or hailing a taxi, etc., though regardless.

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

In europe if a man requires a woman to be a secret and/or any other form of non-legitimate relationship it is normal that a man comes up financially for the drawback of his requirements (for example not being able to provide a full relationship with holidays, veto-rights and what not - anything that is not really consensually poly ).
I would never degrade a person that way and find it cool to not pay money for it ;-). No matter if love is there or not. Its a simple matter of respect!

I think it depends largely on the respective parties' expectations. I can imagine a situation in which the lady was already secure financially and both parties were happy with occasional casual sexual encounters, no strings attached, and with no exchange of money. The same thing happens in civilian relationships, and may be less than a full relationship even though not secret. If both parties are happy with that, great.

If a lady is only interested in the path toward a full relationship, that's fine too. Or if a lady needs financial support in order to have enough free time (and reduced stress ) to be available when it's convenient to him, that's fine too.

Unfortunately, sometimes there is a mismatch of expectations. Sometimes because they're uncomfortable discussing those directly. Sometimes because of a misunderstanding -- which might be either wishful thinking without a foundation, or deception/manipulation.

It's the "a man requires a woman" part that is a problem. It has to be something that works for both parties.

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I'm still of the belief that there still is room to be a gentleman and do small things like holding a door or hailing a taxi, etc., though regardless.

Those, I do. Opening the car door, though, is usually reserved for my wife and my mother.

[ForumPoster]

Originally Posted by WTF

I get it.... It is all about you!


You do realize that if women had all the $, they would have to pay. Broke fuckers can not pay! Damn.

That said , an equal spilt of money/resources would mean an equal split when paying ( or should in theory). A much nobler goal IMHO. Can you grasp that concept?


You want stupid examples, I'll give you stupid examples: I built and sold a 3+million dollar home to a couple with two kids. The husband could not afford the home, the wife could. They bought it on her income, not his. But she just started making a million bucks.....he made good money and supported the family but she started a business 7 years into their marriage and now their lifestyle is dominated by her income. Something that you can not seem to wrap your head around. A woman paying the bill(s)!I see nothin wrong with it. He makes 300k btw. Not shabby but it won't get you in my neighborhood.





atl....if you were a woman we'd all be fuc'd!

How often does the wife in your example gets laid? I mean REALLY gets laid? Because I guarantee you that hubby had his last boner when she started paying the bills.

Lina