Going away overnight . Who pays?

[mamstomes]

I’m seeing a man for the last month. We’ve had five dates and we’re going away overnight at the weekend so moving onto the next level, so to speak.
He invited me, organised it and has also organised a type of activity for the first afternoon.
I definitely have issues surrounding money as I find it hard to accept generosity. He has insisted on paying for dinners, lunches etc to date but I have also treated him to lunch despite much protesting. I live to be treated but find it uncomfortable .
who pays for this break and how would you broach it? I have not dated in years and am old!!!!

Oh I agree. I was just responding to the poster who thinks men and women make equal effort.

I'd expect a man to dress smartly and shave/trim etc on a date as well. Obviously women are held to higher beauty standards, but if he's not making an effort in that department as well, he'd fail that filter. We're both auditioning each other.

Same here but there is a different level of expectation of women from many men which means that many women end up paying much more for a date than a man.

Yes. And I he can't even do the bare minimum to show respect by paying on the date, imo it shows he has no concern for you. Women take bigger risks dating men too. Huge risks with bells on. If the chump won't even buy the coffee then he really doesn't give a fuck. Yes he needs to shave and shower before turning up too but he should be doing that anyway.

I don't think him paying goes any way to compensate though. Men need to bring more than money to relationships these days.

If he's a sexist arsehole, he pays cos he thinks that entitles him to something, not out of respect.

Your reasoning is ridiculous. You’re saying that men should signal that they are a risk to you by paying you danger money.

If you’re unable to assess safety, and meet men, and need them to pay you danger money due to that failing, then fair enough, but don’t tar us all with the same brush. Many of us are fully able to assess men, meet in public places, until we know them, and keep ourselves safe.

Yes she’s saying she doesn’t know how to keep herself safe, meets men who pose a risk and wants paying for it,

Agree. And it’s not the reality of modern dating at any age
I’m 60 and had men turn up for dates in a suit and tie and at the other extreme a football shirt and shorts. In both cases him picking up the tab is irrelevant to me view of whether to see him again ( no in both cases?

And I’ve had a man tell me I was overdressed for wearing a dress on a first date so I don’t tho l the ‘men expect women to dress up’ is accurate.

I choose to wear nice clothes and do my hair and face but that’s my choice. I do the same if I’m meeting a mate for a drink. I do it for me not so a bloke will get his debit card out.

I find that logic bizarre tbh

No. I'm not.

I'm saying that me should recognise she is the one taking far more chances in dating and may even as pp mentioned have spent far more before even going on the date. The bare minimum that he can do is pay. If he doesn't want to do the bare minimum respectful social convention at the beginning when he should be putting his best self forwards, chances are-he never will. In whatever form bare minimum takes as the relationship continues.

Agree. Surely any woman with any sense of personal awareness meets in a public place until they feel secure? That’s basic and sod all to do with who pays.

And the logic that he’s tight if he doesn’t pay for everything she puts in her mouth but she’s not a freeloader for sitting on her hands when the bill arrives is ridiculous

Oh fuck off. No I'm not.

Except Sexist Arsehole who thinks paying for date entitles him to something also passes the "pays for date = respect" test.

He can think whatever he likes. So long as YOU don't think it means you owe him anything.

Creeps are going to act like creeps either way. At least if he does, you're not out of pocket if he bought the food.

The bare minimum he can do is to show you that he will meet you as an equal partner.

You are signalling that you are prepared for him not to meet you there, as long as he pays for the privilege.

You are literally selling yourself short.

Why? Why would you assume he wouldn't be held to other standards too?

You can have both you know. Respect in one area doesn't mean it has to lack in others.

If you're holding him to those other standards, then why does he have to pay danger money?

It just seems like it's signalling "I am happy with the traditional roles" when actually the expectation is equality.

Why would modern dating look exactly the same as outdated roles in dating if you're after different outcomes?

I agree. It was a very strange comment from that other poster seemingly suggesting a man should pay the most because of the risk of the woman being abused etc? Very strange! "Danger money" indeed!

I'd never "overnight" with any bloke until I was 100% certain they were "safe" based on numerous "dates", days out, etc. With first serious boyfriend, we didn't even go on a date until we'd known each other a few weeks - we met during voluntary work so we did the "get to know you" basics whilst at work. Yes, probably over-cautious but that was what I wanted. Even then it was to local, known, "busy" places. First "overnight" was probably after six months!

No amount of him paying etc would have meant I'd reduce my timescales/confidence with him etc.

Traditional respect doesn't have to mean traditional roles.

I'm not a man and I don't want to be treated like his male buddies. It's a date.

We might be equal but we are not the same. I expect to be respected as a woman not just as an equal.

Both are perfectly possible coexisting together.

You want to cherry-pick from the patriarchy. It doesn't work that way.

It does work that way if you hold them to it.

Decent men know how to respect women as women and as people. 'You can't have it both ways' is bs crap men spew to try make you feel that feminism somehow means they have the right to disrespect you as a woman just because you have more rights than you once did.

How does "respecting someone as a woman" differ from "respecting someone as a person" in your worldview, outside of paying them danger money?

Stop calling it danger money. It was already explained in away that clarified that it is about respect.

Simple things, think on it yourself. There a are lots of ways we behave respectfully for others based on things like sex, age etc...

There's respect but then there are little seperate respects we do that change based upon who we are with.

No, it's wasn't "already explained" in any such way. You are simply trying to make contradictory claims. To remind you, here is what you wrote earlier:

Women take bigger risks dating men too. Huge risks with bells on. If the chump won't even buy the coffee then he really doesn't give a fuck.

I've already thought on it myself. I'm asking you what you mean by it, because I think you mean all the ways in which you want to be able to cherry-pick from the patriarchy. Which for some reason you think you can do without upholding it. Speaking of which:

It does work that way if you hold them to it.

Who is "them" in this sentence? The patriarchs? That's not how it works either.

That's what I would say as well

that sounds fair, enjoy!