Paying For Stuff Is Sexy
I doubt there’s a man alive who hasn’t noticed that, as a good rule of thumb, if you pay for stuff when you’re with a woman of interest, you’re more likely to gain her affections. Some men draw the wrong lesson from this, and conclude that all women are “whores”. (Oddly enough, this soon becomes true for them; pretty quick the only women in their lives are ones who trade faux affection for money and loot.)
Smart guys know better. Smart guys know that a generously applied wallet is a form of hospitality; it’s a means of expressing your willingness to take care of a lady. And there ain’t hardly anybody in this world who doesn’t enjoy being taken care of, whether they need it or not.
And, it works. Just ask Midwest:
I know that it sounds weird, and I reiterate that’s it’s not about the money, but it’s very sexy when a guy insists on paying. It’s a manly-man thing to do. It communicates the desire to take care of me. I think it appeals to a biological drive to be cared for by men.
I realize that’s not P.C. to say, and women very well may not need to be taken care of, but it feels nice when we are. Being around him – having him pick up the checks, cover the gas and open my doors – makes me feel more feminine. And in turn, I view him as more masculine.
Suddenly the sweet lil’ pup at the copy machine has morphed into a hunky mountain climber with big guns, solid quads and a generous spirit.
And I kind of have a crush on him.
Shorter URL for sharing: http://www.erosblog.com/?p=1536
Thanks for defending my co-blogger, Bacchus, in the face of Norma-Rae’s comments.
Isn’t the point of writing and exploring these matters to learn from the experience of others? Isn’t the mystery of any kind of relationship that they are ALL different, and what’s good for one person will be wildly satisfying – or totally underwhelming – to another?
Politics: boring.
Gaining insight: sexy.
Wombat
I think paying for things, opening doors, etc. is, it some regard, an exercise in ownership and control. That being said, I love to swap that control – sometimes enjoying the feeling of having a man order for me and pay, sometimes doing it myself for him. Why not?
Kisses,
Vanessa
http://www.talk...a.com
I agree with Vanessa.
Taking turns: sexy.
I think one of the problems here is that Bacchus is saying one thing (“Paying is a form of hospitality”) while the blogger he quotes is saying something else (“It’s a manly-man thing to do”). Bacchus is generally correct, while the blogger he quotes is revealing more about herself than humanity as a whole.
Underlying this is that this kind of scenario is ill-served by general examples. The comparitive wealth of the two people involved, their economic background, their cultural mores–all of these things (and more) impact the way it will be perceived by the woman. Just saying that having the guy pay will make the woman like him more is one of those things you would see in those simplistic handbooks like “How To Get Laid In 10 Easy Steps.”
It is also too specific, which is what Bacchus was getting at when he used the term “hospitality,” which is a much more accurate and general term. The truth is that women AND men respond well to people who do nice things for them. And paying for someone’s meal is a nice thing to do. Is paying for someone’s dinner more “effective” at snagging a girl than perhaps taking her dog to the vet when she’s busy? So if you want a rule that leads to more efficient shagging, it would be this: Be kind and generous with your time, resources, and attention. That is much more important than proving your “manly-man”ness, however you do it.
I’m comfortable enough in my liberation to understand that no matter how much a man spends on me, they can never buy me. I have no issues with letting a guy pay if he’s dead set on it. I always offer to pay my share or get the next check, and in a long term relationship I pay as often as I can. I will totally admit that there is a sliding scale depending on income and willingness to use it. A doctor gets to buy me dinner because it doesn’t really affect either of us to let him. My boyfriend probably pays for more than I do, but not by much and only because he has a job and I’m a student.
Is there an underlying link between the widely held “Manly men pay” meme to sexual stereotyping? Absolutely. But it’s comforting to a lot of people to behave in formal roles at times.
Accentuating the perception of one’s sexual identity is a common method of enhancing attractiveness. When a guy dresses up to go out to dinner, he wears a tie. If I’m at a formal event, I wear a dress. These are times when sexual stereotypes are considered expected and attractive. There is nothing innately masculine about a strip of cloth around the neck, nor innately feminine about an undivided garment. They are culturally derived
signals indicating a given sexual identity.
I understand that this is a more loaded question than whether or not a guy wears a tie, as it does have the implication of “providing” if not outright “paying” for a woman. I don’t, however, think that most men see it that way. Most men feel like it’s just polite. Good manners, hospitality, and the like. It makes them feel like they’ve done the right thing and expressed the enjoyment of getting to spend time with a woman. They are also doing it so that the woman thinks of them as polite and willing to do something for her. That’s why it works as a dating strategy. Really, a guy who feels he’s owed something by paying for dinner isn’t actually doing it because he thinks it’s polite. He IS doing it to get that blowjob, and it is a totally different motivation. I refuse to paint all men with that brush.
I will also say that it has to be part of a bigger attitude for paying to work as “brownie points” rather than “boor.” If all a guy does is pay and he never springs for the niceties of effort rather than cash, it doesn’t get him anywhere.
I think people worry too much about money. I don’t really care that much. Now, I should admit that I’ve hardly got any money so I’m uncomfortable spending on anything I don’t need, but that’s what happens when your parents are divorced high school teachers and you go to an expensive university. What I mean is this: money is just a means to faciliate transactions. Its intrinsic value is simply that. Why should we care about it beyond that? I want money so I can live decently. Beyond that, I don’t care; I prefer to be creative than to throw money at things. Why should these debates even occur?
Norma Rae’s response indicates to me that she didn’t read Midwest’s post, only the excerpt. MW was fully expecting to go dutch all the way, but… He offered. He insisted. And dammit, that DOES feel good. “You.. you WANT to do this?? WOW!” It’s a compliment, and is to be taken as such.
Sorry, I disagree entirely. This seems to be old-fashioned sexism dressed up: I always go halves with a date – I earn good money, why expect a man to pay for me?
Not that I have anything against a man who wants to take care of me, but I’d far prefer to be with someone who took care of my needs, rather than my finances.
Faced with a man who pays for the meal, or a man who wants to make a meal out of me all night, I know which one I’d go for – and it’d have nothing to do with what’s in his wallet. (Besides a condom, that is).
I think you can probably tell the difference between a man offering to pay because he wants to take care of you, and a man who assumes you can’t pay. The former is sexy, while the latter is a sign to stay away, at least for me. So I guess I agree with Ava, in that in order for this advice to be truly practical, you need to hold a somewhat more complex view than “the man should pay.”
It’s quite the conundrum: Men are told that the women are trying to trap them, so the men should just take advantage of women to get as much sex as they can. Women are told that the men are just trying to get sex, so women should take advantage of men to buy them things.
Ah, the semantics of being a whore. It’s so brave of you, Bacchus, to openly criticize brazen whoring (you know, “faux affection for money and loot”). Oh, but if the affection is genuine toward someone who is buying you things, then it has nothing to do with being a whore. In fact, we could even call it hospitality!
I’ve said this a thousand times: At least whores are honest. I say this because there is nothing honest about the type of relationship you describe. I like how in your rationalisation, it’s the smart guy who does the buying.
I’m sorry, but I just get the overwhelming impression that Bacchus just loves our culture of subtle whoring. You know, the men who insist on paying simply out of “hospitality” and “tradition”. And the needy women who just happen to be more attracted to the men that are buying them things. Yes Bacchus, we all DO enjoy being taken care of. And in an honest relationship, people take care of each other. But purchasing something is the quickest, simplest, easiest, most hollow thing you can do in a relationship.
Sorry, Midwest, but you really do sound like a whore. “I think it appeals to a biological drive to be cared for by men”. Biological drive my ass. I think they call that the greedy weasel/lazy American chromosome. You have been trained from birth to be attracted to people who buy you things. Want to know something else? Men (the type you would date, that is) don’t even care whether your affection is genuine. The only genuine thing they care about is the blow job that you’ll give them when they are generous enough to merit it.
I can hardly express how much pity I have for people like you.
Men offering to pay: it goes beyond dating. It’s just good ol’ generousity at work.
It works with men, too… if you’re out with the boys, buying a friend a beer or two will make him more amenable towards you.
With women, becoming amenable is the first step towards something romantic…!
Norma Rae, you’re pushing very close to the line in regards to the degree of incivility allowed in ErosBlog comments. I won’t allow a second comment that’s as incivil as that one.
The Girl — disagree all you like, but Midwest’s reaction is *much* more common than yours. Of course, nothing works with every woman, but a wise man still pays attention to trends and patterns.
Everybody: you’re jumping into the old tired argument about the *politics* of the matter. That argument was tired and boring by 1976. Thrash it out here all you like, but I won’t be engaging in it.
I’m more interested in the practicalities, and in outraging the politically correct by being honest about how this works, like it or not. I quoted Midwest as an anecdotal example.
Ladies, when it comes success with women, men are interested in what works. On that subject, outrage and indignation about successful strategies is just water off a duck’s back to us.
Wonder why we think we understand a thing, the moment we can describe a few of its peripheral aspects… Perhaps its a habit spun off from the conceit that we can engineer society, as though human interactions were definable by If-Then-Else diagrams. Hey! Forget all the cocktail conversation sociology: Any woman I’m with I view as a possible sexual partner; women do the same thing, like mentally trying on shoes. The give-and-take of the male and female versions of “hospitality” is, I suspect, just the normal exchange of two-way clues, each presenting the picture of his/her preferences and objectives, according to a bargaining biogrammar that is ten thusand times more ancient than the self-brilliant introspections that wind up in sociology texts and feminist prattle. Don’t bother to worry about it or define it: Just Do It!
“A guy’s willingness to pay and his attitude about paying can tell me alot about whether he cares.”
Come now. This is absolutely not true. It COULD tell you that he cares, but it could also tell you that he just wants to get in your pants and not care about you at all.
In line with Bacchus’s request for focus on the practical, may I add how dificult this issue can be when played out between two well-muscled, leather-clad dudes meeting at an urban bar?
Who buys whom a beer is the least of our problems. Pouring his beer over my chest is “manly-man”, but licking it off my crotch might be construed as the opposite. Downstairs at the coatcheck, if he takes the ticket out of my hand and gives it to the coatcheck guy in one gesture with his own, that may be gallant, but what does it say about the guy, or about me? The process of landing sex so often involves many guises and rituals with your trick’s real nature peeking through the clouds of machismo as he helps you out of the cab or holds the door to hid building or offers you some bottled water before knocking you to the ground and mounting your face, so to speak. I mean, I’ve heard that’s what some guys do…
1. I’m naturally a generous guy, it definately isn’t like i’m trying to get in her pants. A few months ao, i think, Aphrodite had a pst lamenting the scarcity of nice guys out there. It’s things like this that make it harder to be a nice guy. I enjoy being a nice guy so yea. and 2. Is it just me, or s there so much makeup on the model in that penthouse pic of the day, that you too wonder if there’s a real live natural girl in there anywhere?
I prefer always to ask these questions before deciding:
1. is what is discussed fairly universal, ie, in western cultures, in Asian countries? world-wide? If so, what does that tell us. If not, what does that tell us?
2. Is there a history of this or is this a fairly recent development?
3. Is there an evolutionary fitness thing at work behind the act or action. That is, is there a sexual fitness evolutionary (bilogical) or meme at work. Example: why is it the custom to give diamond rings for engagements or as a sign of love? Why the bigger the diamond the more the woman is pleased and the more “expressive” the gesture?
Such considerations often help view things in a manner a bit beyond a good guess.
I find nothing wrong with *a* woman (or man) insisting that this is what works for them, the problem I have is with collectivist statements like “it feels nice when we are” seems to speak for everyone.
Bacchus does the same thing in speaking for ‘smart men’. Subttly implying that people who don’t agree with him are not up to his level of smartness.
The point is lost here. *Caring* for someone is good, but in a real relationship between real adults, it should be a mutual set of matching needs and areas where someone is able to focus attention on them in a way that makes you feel special.
I personally adore it when a guy offers to pay, but I’d never assume such a thing. As a matter of fact, I once unintentionally made one of my ‘friends with benefits’ quite angry because I assumed I’d be paying for my own way into a place. After explaining my stance on the situation, he understood, but he playfully won’t let me forget that he now considers me a ‘liberated woman on the go’.
I think as usual this is a matter of context. Sometimes it’s a guy trying (consciously or not, as many guys will even get offended when you correctly point out they’re doing this) to buy the gal’s affection. Sometimes the guy’s just acting like himself, like “it’s just something i do”. And sometimes the guy’s just showing off :P
The point that must be taken into account is that no matter what do we think, hope or like, or what’s PC or not right now, there’s an undeniable primal element into all this seduction dance, and the “male as a provider and protector” thing is a part of it.
When I’m on a date, I try to do things that make my partner feel comfortable and desirable. The issue of “who pays” is tricky because some women look at it as a symbol of her value to you. If you don’t pay, she may feel like she’s not worth much to you.
On the other hand, some women don’t like to feel beholden to a man they’ve just met. If he pays, it may make her feel unequal in the relationship.
It’s not something easy to ask about either. Even if she prefers that I pay, she may not say so out of fear of appearing to be a “whore”.
My rule of thumb is to offer to pay, citing the rule that the inviter pays for the invitee, with the suggestion that if we go on another date, then she pays for me.
In the long run, both parties must feel that they’re getting value out of the relationship.
“Not that I have anything against a man who wants to take care of me, but I’d far prefer to be with someone who took care of my needs, rather than my finances.”
Me too. But I won’t let anyone near my needs until I know they really care about me. A guy’s willingness to pay and his attitude about paying can tell me alot about whether he cares. If there’s a better faster way to learn that, let me know!
Ava, I said willingness AND attitude, and together they HAVE told me alot about alot of guys. Sorry your experience is different. And my 8th grade English teacher taught me that in a sentence like I wrote, ‘can’ and ‘could’ mean the same thing.
Aphrodite,
With all due respect, I think you’re being naive. Sure, a guy buying your meal and acting chivalrous about it can and could actually be a nice guy, but your point that this can “tell you a lot” about whether he cares about you is simply wishful thinking.
For that to be true then guys who want nothing more than one night stands and no commitment would never act chivalrous or buy a woman a meal, and do you really think that guys like that would avoid being chivalrous or buying a meal if it worked at getting them what they wanted? Heck, even Bacchus states flat out that one of the reasons it is good for men to pay is that “it works” and “men are just interested in what works.”
If being chivalrous and paying for a meal works, you can be sure the jerks are going to add it to their repertoire.
As to “can” and “could,” I was using them as synonyms, so I guess I agree with your eighth grade teacher.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
Suppose he did say something horrible, and then wanted to retract it. Are you saying he shouldn’t correct his past mistakes?
Also, I don’t think you addressed his complaint. He said you added the word “just,” implying that men don’t care about other stuff, which he did not mean.
But why turn an argument about money (which I think is silly anyway) into an argument about semantics and style of discussion (which I think is sillier)? Everyone wants to see things “in black and white.” A guy can want to do “whatever works” to get in a girl’s pants and still be a great person — don’t judge him harshly by his short-term goals when his long-term goals may mitigate his actions.
I think Bacchus’s point is that when you added the word ‘just’ into what he said, it totally changes the meaning.
Ava, I have not touched a word of my original post. I have not edited the post in any way.
And Aphrodite is correct. When you added a word to your “quote”, you distorted my statement and made it a calumny I never uttered. That’s tacky.
Interedting how so much ‘he said she said’ actually manages to distract from the main issue.
sometimes I pin my gf against the wall and hold her hands above her head with one of mine, using my other hand and my mouth/tongue to excite her, and sometimes she does that to me.
We went shopping yesterday for food, and I paid. We went shopping again today for food, and I paid, but as I did she said “I was going to pay”, in a manner that suggested that she would really like to pay next time. If you think I’m going to go ahead and annoy her by paying for the food next time, you’re quite wrong.
Communication is the key thing, context, subtext, all those things that are often hard to put into words, but make All the difference.
I -love- this debate. It’s been great fun to watch.
“If being chivalrous and paying for a meal works, you can be sure the jerks are going to add it to their repertoire.”
Right! But they’re still going to show their jerkitude somehow. Like the guy in a different Midwest story (http://kissnblo....html), that let her pay “because he had to drive over again.”
I think Ava’s and my views are different more because of age differences. Or because I’ve lived in small towns all my life, where it’s hard for a jerk to hide the fact that he’s just a pussy-seeking missile. I am definately not naive about what men want, and for me, doing the who-pays dance with all the communication happening (thx Justin for making that point) helps me separate good guys from the jerks. Which was my original point, and that’s all it was.
I’m with you 100% Aphrodite. I totally agree with your point that they’ll show their jerkitude (love that word) somehow. (Well, not always. I’ve gotten fooled–or blinded myself–more than once to a guy’s jerkitude). In this case, maybe I was being too analytical in that I simply focused on your comment that the fact they paid would be your clue. There are, of course, lots and lots of other clues, as Justin describes so ably.
I was ignoring all the other factors and honing in on that.
Thanx Ava, I thought we agreed more than we disagreed. You’re right, some guys (and girls! girls can be jerks too!) are very good at hiding their jerkitude, and sometimes the chemistry is so hot that we don’t see the warnings.
Ava, I resent having words attributed to me that I did not say. You made up the “men are just interested in what works” quote you attributed to me, and it’s a gross misrepresentation of my position.
I said “Men are interested in what works” which I believe. You twisted that to “Men are *just* interested in what works” which would have been a dire calumny against men. If I had actually said it.
I have to say that this has been one of the most interesting comment exchanges that I’ve read here at erosblog.
I wondered why the RSS feed for the “Paying For Stuff Is Sexy” post showed up as new within the past hour when I had read the entry yesterday and marked it as read. Now I know: You edited your post and removed the parts that I quoted.
Bad form, Bacchus. I don’t mind a healthy debate, but going back and editing your post so that the quotes I accurately pull no longer exist is sneaky and underhanded. If you can’t stand by what you write in the first place, then don’t write them at all. Don’t go back, remove them, and then act all resentful that someone accurately quotes you on what you wrote.
I cannot begin to tell you how disappointed I am in you.
Okay, I decided to look around via searches for your comments, Bacchus, because I know you made them, and here they are:
“Ladies, when it comes success with women, men are interested in what works. On that subject, outrage and indignation about successful strategies is just water off a duck’s back to us.”
So, Bacchus, please don’t state that I was quoting “words attributed to me that I did not say.” They are there in black and white. Any gross misrepresentation is in your denial in writing them.
I did make one mistake, however, your comments weren’t in the original post, they were in your response to Norma Rae above. So, I apologize for stating that you edited your post, when the reality is that the “dire calumny against men” was in your own comment to Norma Rae’s comment, rather than in the original post.
Personally I enjoy reversing chivalry – holding doors, moving out chairs, and paying for meals for guys I’m interested in. It feels good to be able to take care of them, simple as that, and there’s the side benefit of seeing whether or not they can take it with grace as well as dish it out – by which I mean remember to reciprocate.
Well, to chip in, I have to say that I have observed that the more gorgeous the woman/man the more men, and women too, are willing to pamper her/him. Oh, and this includes willingness to put up with various sorts of BS while engaged in said pampering. I think Aphrodite is right, in the sense that it does show how seriously the other person is attracted to her. I doubt it shows much about how nice they are or how much they care about her, unless it is later in the relationship. That said, I personally adore to have a man run the date. It’s nice to just have someone else take care of you, and it’s just so easy and relaxing. Plus there is the surprise–what does he have planned? All that is lost if you go dutch–he needs to make sure it isn’t too expensive, you have to talk about what you both want and like since you’re going equally. Tiresome. I love the surprise of a well-planned date, and love to do the same for my lover as well. It’s fun.
When women feel totally loved and adored are much more likely to let go.
Now this is interesting. I consider myself gentlemanly, and do pay by default. The silent understanding is that at some point in the future someone will get the next meal/round/whatever.
I have been out with women, and when it comes to getting the bill not a single one of them has attempted to get the bill (on the first or subsequent meals), or offered to pay for it.
The girl who does one day take the initiative will gain more respect from me than the others. I feel that it shows she is willing to continue the dining relationship (which may lead on to something else), as opposed to getting very nice free meals in good company.
This is of course based on dates. When in relationships it starts to become a bit more equal. Althoug I’ve found the man pays more anyway.
Perhaps its my english schoolboy upbringing.
Personally, I think that the more expensive dates should be saved until later in a relationship.
Take the issue of dinner or supper:
If you are worried about the whole ‘who pays’ question, just pick some ingredients up from the store and tell your date to bring some. Then prepare the meal together, and if you want to pack it up and take it out somewhere like the park.
It’s more intimate that way, anyway; and besides, I think you can glean a much better idea of the person you are with.
Actually, I find I enjoy that much more than going out for fine dining… not that my cooking isn’t fine dining, thank you very much.
Men offering to pay: it goes beyond dating. It’s just good ol’ generousity at work.
It works with men, too… if you’re out with the boys, buying a friend a beer or two will make him more amenable towards you.
With women, becoming amenable is the first step towards something romantic…!
Whereas I certainly enjoy a good blow job as much as the next guy, I’m not so sure it’s my primary goal when I ask a gal to dine with me.
Sometimes I seek a dinner date to continue a really good conversation, albeit at leisure, or if a conversation has pretty much been exhausted, I’ll hope to start some new conversation with a person who is intellectually stimulating, or otherwise somehow is interesting. If the person is attractive to me, and sex ensues, then so much the better.
If all I wanted was a BJ, then it’s usually easier and cheaper to find a gal who’s “in the business”. Not only are they often more physically attractive on average than the the generally available single fare residing in the local populace, but they are most likely to give superior service due to their experience or monetary motivation.
But I degress…
I often times will ask a girl to share a meal just because I like her, and I want to introduce her to a really good place to dine as far as the ambience, or some awesome food. I really do enjoy good dinner conversation. Same as a “date” to a nightclub, where I want to share the joy of listening to some really good band I’ve discovered.
If the evening ends with good sex, then it’s an unexpected bonus.
Good conversation is likely to lead to a second date, whereas merely good sex can eventually actually get boring over time.
To me, intimate conversation trumps intimate carnal knowledge, not that I’m knocking it…