What are your boundaries/red lines for dating?

[Girlywurly]

I'm thinking about this today, because yesterday I had to cancel an otherwise promising first date because the guy had still not confirmed details of where/when we were meeting by lunchtime on the day of the date, due to having lots of unscheduled business meetings.

I feel that this is very disrespectful of me, my time, and my work and parenting responsibilities. I'm not going to get all dressed up and sit waiting for my phone to buzz, especially when I've got a babysitter in who I've had to pay for.

The guy in question seemed quite surprised and uncomprehending when I messaged him to say I don't do last minute meets and suggest we were not compatible in this regard.

Got me thinking how everything has different notions of what's acceptable.

So what are your boundaries/red lines for dating?

Wow. Not quite everything then. Erm, thanks Poo...?!

See ya!!

"I didn't think the demand for grabby single mothers with self-esteem issues would be quite so high."

That's a very misogynist comment. The dating jungle is rife with single fathers. Granted, the majority have their weekends and don't have to pay babysitters when they go out but a good man who is looking for a genuine connection will never think less of you for being a single parent.

I've dated a few single fathers but they all had less responsibility than I had. So ironically it works just as easily with men with no children. At my age if I meet a man without children he sees having children as a blessing not a handicap in the dating game.

Seriously, what was the correct response? Should I have been hanging my head in shame??

Well, hanging your head in shame costs nothing, so why not?!

*People lose their tiny minds when a woman says she expects a man to pay for their dates.

Some men like to pay for dates, some women like men to pay for dates. If these two individuals meet up and both are happy with that, why on earth would that bother anyone else?*

^ This x a million!!!!!!

Brilliant post Stoic

There are many single fathers who are hoping to find a stepmum for their kids for childcare during their contact time.
(seen many threads on here where after getting together Dad picks the kids up for contact time and leaves them with stepmum while he fucks off to football or a night out) That is grabby and being a user. Being grabby can involve someones time. Its not all about money.

People lose their tiny minds when a woman says she expects a man to pay for their dates.

I didn't lose my mind (which btw isn't particularly tiny). It's just very far removed from my experience and values, and not an attitude that I can understand.

Just hopping back on to say yay to Helena's post. Women will never be fully emancipated until the time they spend caring for children is attributed value.

In fact, that's exactly what this post was all about: the parameters I place around my time, and how some random bloke thought he could infringe these.

Nice to know you've restated what the post was about now you've deleted a bunch of your comments, OP.

You're right, women will never be fully emancipated until men and women share equal responsibility, or have a reasonable rate of exchange - your babysitter for his paying for your meal and drinks.

But your expectation that he will always pay, and that's the only way you will find him attractive, means that men have to earn more in order to be able to treat a woman - who may not have children and need a babysitter. So you're actually part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Meh, whatever. Good luck.

wow, so it's women's fault that men earn more!??? They're part of the problem!?!? seriously Bant that is the most ridiculous thing you've ever typed on here.

I used to have to pay a babysitter to go out because my x (their dad) never has them. Funnily enough though there was no cause and effect there. My salary remained the modest shite salary of a mother who'd had to step out of the workplace until she was able to make working work, economically. If only there were cause and effect.

I don't want to put words in the OP's mouth but a man who is just bursting to treat you out of genuine generosity is attractive. It's not that men are only attractive if they buy you a meal. Nobody suddenly finds a boring unattractive man attractive just cos he's bought them a meal. If you can't and won't understand that then you don't understand that generosity comes from within and indicates that a man has not become (or is still) bitter, misogynist, resentful. . Time, effort, money, affection, compromise, they're all tied up in each other.. They're all linked ime, and a man who is hyper alert for paying more than 51% of the cost of the night out is going to be a miserable fucker and very soon.

Ps and again, can't speak for the OP but I'm more than capable of telling the difference between a man who hasn't got much money and a man who is determined to sit on his hands lest he inadvertently end up paying 51% of a the cost of a date.

Bant, you've been re-reading the thread to check your arguments but I'm afraid you're still making some factual errors.

1. I don't expect men to pay 'always'.
2. I don't want to be 'treated'. I happen to prefer activities that cost nothing.

And the deleted posts were ones which I had blunderingly posted in error. They concerned another woman's (much more serious) dilemma and belonged on another thread.

To be blunt, I think you're rather obsessed with sex, money and what's unclean in women's sexual conduct.

You've posted hundreds and hundreds of words on these themes over the last few days, expressing your 'pity' and offering 'support'. You feel 'icky' thinking about what I get up to with my boyfriends.

It's weird. I'm surprised you can't see that when you re-read the thread.

I'm not offering support, girly. As I've said several times, what you choose to do, how you choose your boundaries, well that's up to you. But I did wonder about whether you end up in financially or emotionally abusive situations because you seem to actively choose people to date who will financially control you. You seem to not want to answer that question. I'm just interested as to whether your dating expectations and sense of entitlement lead you into situations which many would find negative.

And yes, you've said you also value their time, and cheap dates are okay. But you explicitly said you expect them to pay, and keep paying, and that's why you find them attractive.

Please don't twist my words, about feeling 'icky' about what you get up to with your boyfriends. I think I made it clear that I find the concept of only being attracted to men who pay for your time a bit icky.

And as I've said, I'll happily pay for a meal, or drinks, with someone I've asked out, whether or not I want to see them again, because I asked them out and it's the right thing to do. I'm not paying for their time, I'm paying for the event I chose.

The thought that someone would find me more attractive because I pay for things.. it's just a bit odd.

No of course I'm not saying it's women's fault that men earn more, brog

But setting the expectation that men have to pay for drinks and dinner, that women expect men to do so. Well it means we have to be paid more, doesn't it. Like a tax that men have to pay. We're men, we should pay, therefore we have to earn more to compensate. It's an argument against equality of wages.

I'm not making this argument, incidentally. The OP is.

Like a tax that men have to pay, what to get the sex they're entitled to? Men don't have to do anything, and neither do women.

Once again, to assuage your (completely sincere?) concerns: Bant comments on my 'form' with men, while knowing nothing about it. I am 34 and have had two largely happy long term relationships with absolutely lovely men, both of whom remain good friends. Good relationships with my father and brother. My closest and longest friendship is with a heterosexual male. I'm now enjoying a series of short-term sex-based flings because it suits me right now and I enjoy it. I get on with these men, enjoy their company and we tend to part on good terms.

Bant, you're on dangerous territory if you're going to start talking about the extra things either gender 'has' to pay for.

Neither men nor women have to be generous. But women have to pay for for everything from haircuts to razors to moisturiser to tights. Women are routinely paid 70% of what men earn and can't claw that deficit back by refusing to be generous to the people they want to spend time with.

Pay more for (whilst earning less)

Bant - you are also going round in circles.

You criticise the OP for letting men pay for dates - and see that as icky - but then say you will happily pay for dates.

No ziggy, I was saying I find it icky that the OP will only find men attractive if they continuously pay for dates, that she will expect them to continue doing so, and will only find them attractive if they continue to do so.. I'll happily pay for a first date, because I invited them, but if the woman isn't at least prepared to go Dutch, in case things hadn't worked out, if I think they expect me to pay for everything, all the time, then I find them less attractive and somewhat entitled, so I won't want to pursue that relationship.

I think it's icky that the OP only finds men attractive if they continue to pay for her. Like a transactional thing.

brog yes, according to the OP, men have to be generous if they want to have a relationship with her.

Women do earn significantly less than men, which is ridiculous and wrong. The OP's approach actually justifies at least part of the difference though - saying that if men want a relationship they have to continuously pay for things, because she won't. Why should things change if women expect to have men pay for a relationship?

Possibly it's a catch 22 thing, men should earn more because women expect them to pay for things, because men earn more..

The OP's perspective just reinforces the status quo, that she only finds men attractive if they're financially dominant, which means that men need to be financially dominant in order to be attractive..

OP's creepy weird brackets giggle, and over "daddy issues", and her attitudes to sex and equality are really quite niche, bants - I don't think we can pin pay inequality on her and her ilk.

I'm just interested as to whether your dating expectations and sense of entitlement lead you into situations which many would find negative.

She has answered that. Numerous times.

Your faux concern, which has now just turned to 'curiosity', has been obviously disingenuous from your first post.

How so, stoic? How am I being disingenuous?

Disingenuous. Yep I have to say I was thinking this myself reading Bant's posts.

Some of the vitriol directed at the op from others has also been really nasty and uncalled for. I don't really agree that men should always pay but a lot of women do - many more than the OP. It's not actually a crime.

Bant - your posts are embarrassingly patronising- do stop it.

Righty ho.

Good luck OP.

Well I would rather earn 1.3 times what the average man earns and choose who I wanted to be generous (or not) to. I am very generous with less.

The fact that (some) women appreciate a man buying them a dinner is neither justification nor explanation for this disparity. There are plenty of women on the dating thread who would not let a man buy them dinner. 50:50 always.

The bottom line Bant, be generous, don't be generous. It is your choice of course.

"But I did wonder about whether you end up in financially or emotionally abusive situations because you seem to actively choose people to date who will financially control you. You seem to not want to answer that question"

Wow Victim blaming 101. I suppose you think i brought my financially abusive experience on myself too.

So Bant if you went on a date with a woman whether it be a third fourth or fifth date and it progressed to the bedroom you honestly wouldnt mind if she had hairy legs due to forgoing a wax so she could afford to pay her way on dates. Because for women on a low income it does come down to choices.

Like i said i would never online date IF i was on the dating scene. Ive seen nothing on this thread that would change my mind. Quite the opposite in fact.