So, today, in another context, a question got asked:
"What do you think about women paying for dinner when out on a date?"
And my first response was if they want to pay for it they're certainly welcome to, but that's not necessary.
And then I saw a flood of comments expressing annoyance that this apparently never happens.
And then I saw a comment, from a woman, that got me over here typing.
Because she said, and I quote:
Keep wishing. The onus is on him to impress me. Why would I date a cheapskate when a million other guys are willing to buy me a cheeseburger?
Awesome.
So, to you, a man is, and should be, an ambulatory wallet?
This is exactly what you're saying, here, because if you can only be impressed by him paying for things, then he has no value to you except as a function of his financial success.
Let's take a step back. We shall return, I promise.
First, let's look at the currently in vogue notion that relationships should be equal partnerships.
My lovely wife has, as her eventual intent, the goal of ensuring my career success to such an extent that I can financially provide for our family, while she acts as my support system at home, providing food, shelter, clothing, and emotional support.
In other words, the traditional "homemaker" gender role.
I have no problem with this, because provided I actually get that support, I have no problem providing financially.
I will note, here, that "freedom of choice for women" clearly doesn't extend to choosing the traditional gender role because that's her personal preference, as she gets a blizzard of negativity from a whole assortment of women anytime she says anything expressing this preference of hers in public.
But at any rate, if I am providing financial stability, and she is providing the support system that enables me to do so, that IS, specifically and exactly, an equal partnership. We're not identical, but we are equal. I consult her before making any decisions that can affect both of us, and I take her advice more often than not.
But obviously we're inherently unequal because of our chosen roles within our family.
Don't worry, we'll come back to that too.
When two people start dating, having one of those people say to the other that they're replaceable at the drop of a hat, and therefore required to put on a show, lowers us to the level of animals.
Wave shiny feathers, get laid.
The initial phases of a relationship are when both people are supposed to be learning about the other, learning if they're compatible, learning to get along.
The last thing you want to say is something that conveys an impression this negative.
Some guys might blow it off if you say this to them, ladies. They might say something like, "that's what women are like, anyway."
You know what they're saying?
They're saying they think you're less than they are. They're saying they think of you as a sexually appealing magpie, easily bribed into mating with shiny string, or colored bits of glass, because you have no mind, no worth other than sex, no value.
They're saying that your own words to them have confirmed that impression of you.
Is that what you want?
We'll come back to that.
See, what this is really about is the message.
Not just as you send it, but as others receive it.
These days, people are all about how you're perceived by others; don't be rude, don't be dismissive, don't objectify...
...Wait a second.
Hold onto that word "objectify."
My wife sends me a message, every time we talk about our roles and goals within our relationship.
She says to me, in different, usually longer, words,
"I love you, and even though I absolutely hate the environment I have at work, I am fully committed to our success as a family, and to supporting you; so as your financial success increases, I will take over a greater share of the domestic chores, so you can concentrate on work without worrying about those things."
This is a message I can totally respect.
What I say back, in different, usually longer, words, is:
"I love you, and because of this, I will take on the tasks you specifically hate, so you don't have to; I trust you to have my back, and support me in the ways I need, so that I can take those tasks off your shoulders permanently, and replace them with responsibilities you are happier with."
This is a message she can totally respect.
This does not diminish either of us in any way. My financial contributions, and her domestic contributions, are valued by both of us, and both of us are respected as individuals and as family members.
But let's bring back that word.
"Objectify."
I am not an object, to my wife. I am her partner. She trusts me to fulfill my role in our chosen relationship, values my contributions, values me.
But when you go on a date and say "I'm here, impress me!" You just told that guy he is an object to you; a wallet.
Being objectified is bad when men do it to women; it's just as bad when women do it back.
When you objectify a man by telling him to his face that he has no value to you other than a financial one, he objectifies you right back; he may not spell it out for you, but the instant you make a statement like that to a guy, you turn into a rented sex object that makes noise.
Some of you may have gone "hey!" at that last sentence.
But I urge you to really assess what you're saying, when you tell a guy that you, inherently, have no need to impress or get to know him; you have no need to be interested by the things he says, no need to be interested in his priorities, concerns, likes, dislikes, preferences about anything, or anything at all that's relevant other than his bank balance.
When you say that, you are telling him that he can never trust you, ever.
He can never depend on you when times get tough, ever.
He will never get, from you, the kind of support I get from my wife daily.
After that, he may enter a relationship with you; he may take care of you financially; he may support you in ways that make you feel valued.
But he won't actually value you.
Because the very first thing you did was tell him that your affection is for sale.
You told him that the bar to entry isn't wit, or humor, or compatibility, but money.
That means you're for rent.
And nobody gets attached to the rental car.
If you want equal partnerships in your relationships, the last thing you want to do, ever, is to tell the guy that you're available as a rental.
As a man, I am happy to pay for a date. Even every date.
But when you make that a requirement - I must pay, or you'll walk, no matter how many dates we've had - then you've told me that you're for rent.
And I will expect that, like any other paid escort, you will fulfill your part of the bargain.
