Be honest. If a man expected you...

[AWiseWomanOnceSaidFuckThisShit]

to split the bill on a first date would it put you off?

@Comedycook

Because they've internalised toxic ideas about needing to be dainty compared to their male partners

And why is that? Where did this toxic idea originate from?

As has been said a number of times on the thread, out of the fortunately past necessity for women to depend on male providers whose strength and economic viability they therefore 'bought' with their fertility and physical appeal. It's no longer the case, but some women have clearly still internalised the idea that they should appear fragile and 'feminine' (ie small) beside their male partners. It will pass off in time.

[quote Comedycook]@LargeBouquet

You're looking at what I'm saying from the modern day perspective. Most people choose the most attractive partner they can get. We desire those who look healthy and attractive because this means we are more likely to have healthy children. We don't actually actively sit and think like this...it's subconscious. Do you think we can opt out of biology? Yes the world has changed and women work and we don't live in caves and wait for the man to drag home a dead animal for us to eat. Modern life means women need to work and it's sensible to be financially independent...but we are still animals and most women still subconsciously want a man who has the ability to ensure her children don't starve. It's about continuing the species.[/quote]
But it's not really true that men went out to hunt and women sat in the cave.

www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/prehistoric-female-hunter-discovery-upends-gender-role-assumptions

www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists

It makes no sense for any able-bodied person not to be included in hunting, and it's just ordinary everyday sexism to assume that women weren't involved in hunting as well as gathering.

It's thought the invention of the plough might have created more of a divide as requiring more physical upper-body strength, but it's a nonsense that it harks back to "caveman" days.

Women have always worked for a living.

@Feelingmardy
If you read my other comments, you see me mentioning that’s it’s not all men but on average it’s true. And I would put more value on the experience of someone that a. Is the sex we are discussing. B. Studies this subject and c. Works with people on relationships.

I know there are a lot of women who out earn their partner. But my comment was about the initial stages of dating. And in those stages the amount of money a woman makes is of less importance to a man.

I am always a bit amused by women who claim to know what men think because of their experience with men. It’s like men telling women what it’s like to menstruate because they have sisters.

Women and Men are equal but we are not the same and we don’t think/value the same things. So I would rather hear from more men what they honestly think/value, than the women who believe what men should think/value.

@Comedycook I think a lot of it is nurture. I’ve tried to raise dc gender neutral but constantly fail! I can feel my upbringing with dolls and princes and pretty dresses pressing on me. I’m passing them on a lot as is the nursery and friends. These shape us more than our natural biology.
I remember a programme where researchers monitored behaviour towards boy and girl babies. When the girls fell over the parents rushed to comfort them , when the boys fell over they weren’t comforted and instead were told to get up and keep going. We are shaped constantly by the biases around us. I think it’s 90% this and 10% biology

Women have always worked for a living

Yes and I'm also aware that women were also hunter/gatherers... however, they are also attracted to strong men who would bring as much to the table as possible. Just as men are attracted to healthy, attractive women of childbearing age. It's not a controversial fact. Typical human arrogance to view ourselves as anything more than animals and to think ourselves so superior we can opt out of our biological desires

@Nlisa

But it's ok to assume that one man knows what another man is thinking? Do they all think the same? I don't agree that the info from you friend is enough to say that on average that's how men think. Some men, yes, but this data does not robustly show that that's how an average man feels.

@Comedycook

I may be wrong, and I'll see if I can find the study I'm thinking of, but I think women brought more to the table than men, in terms of calories or food throughout the year. Men's strength was important for other things but we can't use biology as a justification for men paying the bill.

Generally men want sex with the most attractive woman possible. This is wholly uncontroversial imo. Men are more willing to spread their seed as they are capable of getting multiple women pregnant at one time. Women are more selective as can only be pregnant with one man's child. It boils down to men trying to impress women and women choosing the man who impresses her most.

@Feelingmardy,
I can’t say what the average man thinks, because I am not part of the male population.

But I assume that someone who went to uni to study the male/ female psychology. Works in the field and is part of the male population will have a better understanding of what the average man thinks. At least better then a woman who’s experience comes from her personal circle of men.

api-nationalgeographic-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/science/article/prehistoric-female-hunter-discovery-upends-gender-role-assumptions?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16305769535380&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/hunter-gatherer-culture/

God I fucking love MN pseudo-anthropology. Usually it's reserved for sleep training threads.
Man bring home meat. Woman have baby. All happy.
Unless that woman is incapacitated from very recently having a baby, chances are she's out there hunting and gathering. It's just pragmatism- in a fair sized band of what is mostly extended family, it's a huge waste of resources and have each woman staying put with her individual children.
There are other things you can pull apart but, essentially, the natural state of humanity does not look like Norman Rockwell's take on troglodytes.

@Comedycook

Women have always worked for a living

Yes and I'm also aware that women were also hunter/gatherers... however, they are also attracted to strong men who would bring as much to the table as possible. Just as men are attracted to healthy, attractive women of childbearing age. It's not a controversial fact. Typical human arrogance to view ourselves as anything more than animals and to think ourselves so superior we can opt out of our biological desires

With respect, @Comedycook, without looking you up via Advanced Search, I actually remember your username from other threads because of your deeply conservative views about gender relations and marriage -- you are, from what I remember, a SAHM to school-aged children who actively resists your husband doing househoild chores and resented him WFH during Covid.

So many of your posts and your view of the home as your territory are clearly you seeking validation for your decision not to work.

@VulvaTeeth

God I fucking love MN pseudo-anthropology. Usually it's reserved for sleep training threads. Man bring home meat. Woman have baby. All happy. Unless that woman is incapacitated from very recently having a baby, chances are she's out there hunting and gathering. It's just pragmatism- in a fair sized band of what is mostly extended family, it's a huge waste of resources and have each woman staying put with her individual children. There are other things you can pull apart but, essentially, the natural state of humanity does not look like Norman Rockwell's take on troglodytes.

No, I wouldn't be put off, but, it would very much depend on the circumstances of the date, and how it was all done.

Typical human arrogance to view ourselves as anything more than animals and to think ourselves so superior we can opt out of our biological desires but we do opt out of our biological desires. Even something as fundamental as babies, many societies have pushed back what is an acceptable age to procreate from menstruation commencing to 16 / 18 and beyond, not to mention women actively stopping it from happening artificially for years or forever. many societies have laws about older men copulating with young girls even though they might be the best combination for procreation, we insist that men wait for consent before copulating

Isn't it funny how biology is often used when that biology matches up with conservative values, but never used when biology would appear to support a more radical social strucure?

No one ever says "ah yes, competitive sperm adaptations means you are, indeed, biologically programmed to sleep with as many men as you like and let their sperm tough it out inside you to determine which man gets you pregnant so don't worry about those wedding vows or promises to be monogomous because we understand your instinct cannot be overcome"

@LeafOfTruth

Isn't it funny how biology is often used when that biology matches up with conservative values, but never used when biology would appear to support a more radical social strucure?

No one ever says "ah yes, competitive sperm adaptations means you are, indeed, biologically programmed to sleep with as many men as you like and let their sperm tough it out inside you to determine which man gets you pregnant so don't worry about those wedding vows or promises to be monogomous because we understand your instinct cannot be overcome"

"competitive sperm adaptations means you are, indeed, biologically programmed to sleep with as many men as you like and let their sperm tough it out inside you to determine which man gets you pregnant so don't worry about those wedding vows or promises to be monogomous because we understand your instinct cannot be overcome"

Men's penises are shaped to remove your previous paramour's sperm too

Typical human arrogance to view ourselves as anything more than animals and to think ourselves so superior we can opt out of our biological desires

A desire is not an imperative.
People forgo having children for a variety of reasons, or limit the numbers they have, despite wanting more. Quite a lot of people manage monogamy, despite all these things being a hindrance for a desire to reproduce and continue our genetic line as well as the wider species.
We follow laws, social conventions, recognise legal fictions, pay taxes that will help people we've never met, even if it makes our own family poorer.

People overcome biological desires all the time.

Typical human arrogance to view ourselves as anything more than animals and to think ourselves so superior we can opt out of our biological desires

We are more than animals. We wear clothes, are self aware and don't piss up lamp posts and crap in the street. Honest to God I despair of some people.

@ActonSquirrel

Typical human arrogance to view ourselves as anything more than animals and to think ourselves so superior we can opt out of our biological desires

We are more than animals. We wear clothes, are self aware and don't piss up lamp posts and crap in the street. Honest to God I despair of some people.

Well, apart from on a pissed-up Saturday night

Yes we're civilized but the basic laws of sexual attraction based on our desire to procreate and continue the species exist. So vast majority of women would not be sexually attracted to a withered, incapacitated 90 year old man, no matter how funny and clever he was. They'd be much more likely to be attracted to a tall, muscular, healthy man in his thirties. This isn't accidental. This is because the healthy, physically superior man is more likely to provide us with healthy offspring and is more likely to be able to provide for us.

As others have said, it is a widespread custom that the person who issues the invitation pays (and chooses the venue). Reciprocal hospitality is more fun than going halves on everything, and gives each party more control over what they pay for.
If someone I knew well asked me out for dinner (and I were single), I would expect him to pay and find it rude if he didn’t. I would reciprocate if I liked him. Unless he seriously offended me, I wouldn’t offer to pay.
On-line dating is an agreement to meet. Nobody has issued an invitation so the rules are different, but eventually someone must issue an actual invitation or it fizzles out, doesn’t it?
If a man isn’t prepared to take the risk of his initial outlay not leading anywhere then I think I would regard him as excessively cautious and likely to be a bit boring.

But anyway, we've digressed somewhat!