catherine may be tough, but I think she is on the right track.
catherine may be tough, but I think she is on the right track.
I did the stay-at-home spouse thing for a while back when I was married and enjoyed it, my husband not being a patriarchal jerk. However, he did turn out to be a cheater and I had to scramble for a bit to get back on my feet and becoming completely self-sufficient once he was gone. While I was happy being at home (being the homebody that I am), I don't think I'd do it again. You really have to be able to trust the other person to have both of your best interests at heart and I just don't have that sort of trust anymore after that experience.
While I do think there's a time for pricey dates when a man can play the part of the gentleman, I don't think they are necessary most of the time, and then should be up to the person who is doing the paying as to whether he/she wants to go on that type of date. It shouldn't be something expected by either party as a regular thing, especially once it's past first-date status and the couple feels more comfortable with each other and things are less formal.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
I found it extremely hard to meet a Match date and have him pay, when I knew flat out I would not be seeing him again, if I was on the fence or if he seemed perfect. So I always offered. Finally, a man I dated for a short time, actually got angry for me always trying to pay half, he said that is his role, I'm making him feel less like a man, blah, blah, blah, he was drunk so some really nice comments about me trying to "make his d*** shrivel up, etc" were made loudly.
So then I started paying more attention to body language and "type" before offering. It's stupid posturing, I don't like feeling indebted to someone I don't know and what does his paying for the whole night out or quite a few nights out "mean" to him? I felt like if I paid, we were on equal footing. With men much more wealthy than I, I was given the menu with no prices on it, so I did not dare offer. My friends could not understand why I would turn down second dates from such men. I want to be on semi-equal footing in a relationship. I did not want to go on dates so fancy, I had to keep going to the Talbot's outlet to find $200 dresses for $10 so I wasn't wearing the same thing all the time. They were perfectly nice, intelligent, it was totally me, that is not the life I wanted for myself if it went long term. One was a cardiologist I had often spoken to through work, and realized when I learned his last name on Match who exactly he was. Nothing "wrong" with him, we just did not share the same values about money and I in no way wanted to be a cardiologist's wife. Especially after hearing how things went with the first Mrs. Cardiologist. (in hind sight, FAIL, he would've recognized in two seconds that I have POTs and would've saved me more than 6 months of trying to find this out and would have the money to send me to NYC or Boston to see the best neuro available, lmao)
When married, I did go part time for a short time. I liked it being home with the kids, I did not like at all feeling financially inferior to my ex-husband, even though he did make more than me when we were both FT. IDK anyone who felt this way when they were PT, is that really such a crazy feeling? I was raised by a dad who spoke often about finances, so this is not just an issue because I am a feminist, that you pull your full weight and be prepared to be 100% independent should a marriage fail. Ex "said" (how nice of him to give me permission) I could stay home full time. No part of me would ever let me do that, no matter how much I loved a husband or obviously, my kids, i could never do that; he could leave, one of us could be ill, etc. I did not want him to be able to hold me "hostage", unable to get a job in my field because I had not been working for years.
The very day I realized staying would be very bad, I called and my boss said there were FTEs available for me to come back FT as soon as I was ready. My lawyer thought I was crazy, I did not have to go back FT and if I did, I would lose alimony. Unless, I was living on the poverty line with 2 kids, I would never take that man's money as alimony.
when I dated the guy I dated for 7 yrs, we were more equally suited, he paid for a lot in the beginning. He started to accept my offers maybe 1/3 of the time. He made more so he tended to pick up the bigger tabs. But there was no feeling of what I described above. Interestingly, it took me a good 5-6 yrs to realize how not on the same page I thought we were about financial planning and saving, he said the right words and he really did think he was doing fine. When dug deeper, saw how often he would just spur of the moment buy a guitar or similar, had an interest only mortgage so he never paid principle and he was allowed to use what he paid in already as a checking account, had stopped contributing to his 401k in his 50s, etc. WTH on the mortgage? You only pay interest and you take what you have paid and use it to pay bills? Yeah, no, I could never live with a man like that either.
It's hard to find someone who you share the same financial goals and values with. I thought I had that with my ex-husband, he was so simple, he had 2 dinner place settings. He lived across the street from work so he ate there, fridge empty, slept in a freaking twin bed in his 40s and was a super saver. But he put it all in cash, stocks scared him, I convinced him about Index funds and we were cruising. But divorce, well, something before the divorce, changed him from being a simple man with few needs into this nutball who made the NYS minimum child support checks feel like a hostage negotiation for years. If someone told me how much unnecessary money he would spend on lawyers (leading to a bankruptcy), that his children had to have the best possible (DD's violin cost 2/3 of my car and he gets her violins at cost, she is not going to Juilliard, she plays to stay in the State Orchestra so she can put it on her college apps, even she says the cost was obscene and not necessary) that he would be 60 with zero equity and sleeping on his LR couch, retirement savings long gone. I would never have believed it, never.
And that is exactly what scares me into being the opposite. My lawyer charges 1/3 of his, he likes going to court over stupid things yearly, (we have had the same judge for 11+ yrs) she's onto him and I win but we have wasted more money on stupid stuff. And we were on exact equal footing at the start of proceedings, split the equity in the house, figure out the NYS minimum for child support and that brought his income down a great bit and mine up a great bit so we were almost going to be in the exact same financial boat. He eventually went on to greatly increase his salary. So if he had stopped suing me, he should've been able to do what I did, buy a townhouse, live modestly and continue retirement savings. He went off the rails and I'd actually feel sorry for him except he is a terrible human and is currently suing me, lol.
I will never again co-mingle money with a spouse. Although, aren't you kind of forced to? Their debt is your debt, too if you divorce or he drops dead? Is the key to not marry?
ah, jeez, it was a day of being practically in a trance, why can I not use brevity anymore? SORRY!
I have had a few women on dates tell me they treat OkCupid like a free meal ticket. They told me their friends do it too. Obviously that was a red flag. One woman I met told me she spent a year or two meeting a different guy every Friday and Saturday night. She said she did not have much money but still wanted to go out. So she would let them pay her way and pay for dinner. But she'd -- and these are her words -- "let them go d*wn on me and then I'd bl*w them."
She then told me she even "got two STDs from it."
I was like "check please!" No second date there and certainly no night cap.
Who on earth would admit the sex stuff (possibly she was setting you up for what you would get it return for your investment in the date. But then to cop to two STDs from it? OMG
we should have a thread with a contest of who had the worst date ever, the winner gets Penicillin
Some people are very sex-positive. And some people don't view recreational sex as anything more than that, and aren't shamed by it. Perhaps she was feeling out his point-of-view?Quote:
Originally Posted by freshstart
As to STDs, they happen even with safe/safer sex precautions. (And frankly, I'd assume pretty much everyone out there has herpes of some sort at this point - most of the folks with HSV-2 probably don't even know they have it.) So a frank discussion of one's STD status/history can be an important thing.
Be careful out there. But have fun.
The STDs scared me off. I don't think there is anything wrong with a woman having her fun though.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
I was looking for something long term with someone compatible. She was not that.
People get STDs, it is pretty normal. Though I am still going to avoid it like... well... like the plague.
That'd be a heck of a trophy! Penicillin gives me hives -- I am allergic! hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by freshstart
I can see that, in the context of a conversation headed in that direction, or the use of all those apps for people looking for sex that night, people are adults, who cares as long as both parties consent? it's the doing it because she is "paying back" back her dates. That doesn't sound like a positive way to approach sex, that it is a debt she is offering to pay. Unless that gets her off, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
I agree about STDs, especially HPV, I swear that's practically universal. High hopes for that vaccine, but does not cover all HPV. Women can at least be screened for it, there is no such thing for men.
Unless I was going to have sex that night, I would not bring up STDs on the first date. But if I had one, I would do so in an appropriate time frame so the man has time to think about it but not in the heat of the moment. And I would ask him in return.
with a likely LTR looming, I do ask the guy if he is willing to get screened and I do as well. But that doesn't mean you are home free because of what cannot be screened. No one has ever said "no" to this.