Feminist Dating

Feminists have a hard time finding guys who want to date them,” a classmate in my Social Psychology class expressed this sentiment one day during a discussion on stereotype. As a young  feminist, who is in a healthy and happy relationship, this comment rubbed me the wrong way,  as (unintentionally) my classmate had worded it in a way that made the quiet claim: men view feminists as unappealing.


More often than not, in my observations, my feminist friends are not at a loss for interested men and women to date; the problem with dating-while-feminist, rather, lies within finding the person who is both understanding of and open to feminism as well as willing to put many dating norms aside. I’m a lucky one; my boyfriend identified as a feminist even before I was brave enough to label myself the same, but what about the women and men who aren’t so lucky? How do you date successfully while maintaining your feminist principles and beliefs? The following is my best list of tips and tricks, things to live by while trying to find that perfect feminist match…

Before The Date

  • Don’t hide your feminism; anyone who is scared off by that (trust me, it won’t be many) is not worth dating.
  • This should go without saying but, I’ll say it anyways; you can make the first move, but there is no obligation to do so. Nothing drives me crazier than a woman who feels she has to wait for a man to ask her on a date; if you want something, go for it!
  • I don’t care what He’s Just Not That Into You says, you shouldn’t feel obligated to play games; they’re messy, they’re stressful, and they often leave someone hurt. Any potential partner who requires a good chase to keep their interest up will, generally, lose interest once the chase ends (and it has to eventually, that’s the point!) Feel free to keep an ‘air of mystery’ about you, you don’t have to open up to someone right away by any means; but no matter what, please be sincere.

During The Date

  • Consider splitting the tab, maybe even paying! Feminism is about options, we no longer live in an age where men make all the money and , therefore, need to pay for their dates. Consider picking up the tab if you initiated the date, or trading off, or splitting the costs… consider all of the options,just don’t tied to “tradition.”
  • Even if your date does pay, remember, you don’t owe them anything. Don’t feel pressured into sexual contact or anything that you are uncomfortable with just because someone “took you out.” Your company alone is all they are “entitled” to.

The Relationship

  • Don’t let your partner belittle you, ever. Someone who pressures you to change your appearance, your interests, or your beliefs is not someone who has your best interests in mind. Obviously, there are exceptions, partners who are really looking out for their significant other’s well being but these exceptions should be the only one allowed.
  • Whatever it takes, maintain your sense of self. It’s so easy to get sucked into a relationship, and for good reason; relationships are fun! However, when you begin to lose your own sense of self – you drift from friends, let hobbies die off, stop feeling comfortable spending time alone… that’s when a relationship becomes a problem. The art is all within striking a balance between the black-hole-of-love and an island-of-self-sufficiency.
  • Don’t give up on your goals and dreams. Compromise, of course, is an essential part of any relationship but that doesn’t mean you have to sacrifice your goals to be in a relationship.

Making Out, Hooking Up, Sex, Etc…

  • Use protection. Pulling out is NOT protection, birth control is not adequate STI protection without a recent negative STI test. Don’t expect your partner to look out for you, especially not in a new relationship; always take responsibility for your own protection.
  • Remember: ONLY Yes Means Yes. In other words, without a decisive yes, sexual contact should not happen; simple lack of refusal is not enough, considering some people may feel too pressured into an act to actively resist.  Make sure both you and your partner are comfortable with every act you participate in.
  • If/when you take part in any sexual acts do it for you. Obviously you want your partner to enjoy themselves as well, but your primary motivation in deciding to participate in  any sexual interactions should be because you want to, and only because you want to first. It’s just more fun when both partners fully desire the physically connection.
  • Don’t make apologies; your partner should make you feel good about yourself; sexy, attractive, strong… if you don’t feel that way then it’s time to do some soul searching, about your personal confidence as well as your comfort in your relationship. Similarly, we should help our partners to love their bodies, just as they should help and encourage us.
  • It’s supposed to feel good! Regardless of what society tells us, especially women, about sex the truth is sexual contact is supposed to be enjoyed by both parties involved. Don’t be too embarrassed or afraid to communicate your needs; the right person will only love you more for it.


People wiser than me…

Feministing provided me with a link to this article, which is a fun read, they also had a point to make about paying.

This is just funny; a list of the ten things the author hates about heteronormative dating.

As a side note, while researching/writing this I was sad to see how few positive pieces there were about dating and feminism; most articles were geared towards men, explaining to them how to deal with a feminist woman. There awere some awful ones out there but I don’t want to direct any traffic their way so, no links!

34 thoughts on “Feminist Dating

  1. The nice thing, for a man, about dating a feminist is that you can treat her with no more courtesy and deference than you give a man. It’s cheaper and easier to date a feminist. Marriage would be a bit much but the dating part is way easier.

  2. I honestly don’t even know how to respond to this… though it is obviously disrespectful. Let’s break it down: the equality thing is great when you’re just dating a feminist woman because you are expected to treat her as an equal which means negotiating who pays for dates, who plans dates, etc. but then marrying a feminist is a bit much because that expectation of equality means she might want to *gasp* work or pursue interests other than being the perfect-little-housewife which means YOU might have to do a bit more work and well, that’s just a bit too much.

    Nice try, but you can keep your “compliment” to yourself. Try commenting again when you understand that all PEOPLE re individuals deserving of the same amount of deference and courtesy that you would give anyone else.

  3. First, I’m quite sure that I said that feminists should be treated “treat her with no more courtesy and deference than you give a man.” That is equality. No idea why you have a problem with that.

    The “bit too much” is what you exemplified, the anger and aggression that they tend to show. Going out without having to pay for her meal or treat her any different that one of the guys is fine, but having to live forever with someone who is constantly angry and sees a patriarchal slight in every little is not something that most men want to sign up for.

  4. “The nice thing, for a man, about dating a feminist is that you can treat her with no more courtesy and deference than you give a man.” This sentence implicitly implies that non-feminist women somehow require MORE effort (deference, whatever) than feminist women. Comments like this just make me think that you either don’t know any real-life feminists and, thus, have to rely on tired old stereotypes (constantly angry, etc.) to understand them or that you’re enough of a jerk in real life that feminist people know to steer clear of you.

    Yeah, I got annoyed because your clearly backhanded comment indicated that, while you appreciate the benefits of feminism (not being expected to pay, etc.) you don’t care for the detriments (like having to acknowledge your own privilege).

    Dating and befriending feminist PEOPLE (because men can be feminists, too!) has been an awesome experience for me. I am not constantly surrounded by angry bitter people, no, I am surrounded by a group of loving and nurturing people who honestly care about bettering the lives of others. The feminists I know answer crisis hotlines, teach college students how to have safer sex, advocate against antiquated racist, sexist, homophobic, cissexist (and so on) policies… but they also throw awesome parties and make me laugh until my stomach hurts.

    Get to know a real-life feminist… you might be surprised.

  5. You’ve got one serious chip on your shoulder. That is what I mean about being angry. I said the NICE (note, NICE) thing about dating a feminist. Did you note the word NICE? What is your problem with that?

    Non-feminist women don’t demand equality which means (yes) you do have to put forth greater effort, to be sure to open her doors, pay for her meal, defer to her in gentlemanly ways that you don’t need to do for feminists or men. That is just a fact. That’s not dissing feminists or non-feminists. What’s your problem?

    I have met feminists and chatted with quite a few of all stripes. I’m glad it’s been a good experience for you. But, while you piously talk up how loving and nurturing feminists are, you launch into me acknowledging my “privilege” – out of nowhere. It’s that kind of men are “horrible oppressive people” attitude that would make marriage to a feminist plain old unpleasant. No thanks.

  6. “Non-feminist women don’t demand equality.”

    Maybe I do have a chip on my shoulder but, if I do, its because ANYONE should have to demand (or even ask nicely) for equality in today’s society. If that doesn’t seem fucked up to you then I don’t even know what to say.

    I didn’t bring up the privilege thing out of nowhere, I brought it up because your obvious dismissal of the things that frustrate feminist people shows that you are not aware of it. Privilege does not make you a bad person… as a white, cisgender woman in a relationship with a white, cisgender man I have a TON of privilege. What’s bad is refusing to acknowledge your privilege and, worse, demeaning the people who fight so that everyone can have the SAME rights in our society by accusing them of being anger.

    I’m getting frustrated with you, yes but not because I’m a feminist looking for a fight… I’m getting frustrated with you because you’ve choosen to come onto MY blog, and comment… but then you dismiss my well-reasoned responses as a “chip on my shoulder” without taking a moment to wonder just why I might be so annoyed.

    I’m out now (actually, headed to one of those awesome feminist parties) but if you respond with something reasonable, well, then I’ll pick this up when I get home.

  7. I said that you have a chip on your shoulder because you personally attacked me out of nowhere because I happen to be male.

    Again, this exchange is the kind of thing I am referring to. Going out and having a friendly spar with a feminist knowing that I don’t have to give it any more effort or pay any more than in going out with one of my buddies would be cool. If nothing else, I enjoy a good intellectual debate.

    But the feminist anti-male prism is something I can personally do without. No offense intended.

    I stumbled on this, not realizing it was your personal blog. I thought it was open to anyone. My apologies.

  8. I’m sorry, I should have been nicer when explaining why your initial comment made me uneasy… I honestly wish I had been so we could get past this “chip” and actually have a conversation about issues. But, for the record, your statement would have offended me regardless of gender identity because by implying that feminist women are “too much” to marry what you were saying is that you don’t consider feminist women good enough to actually consider being with in the long-term… which is kinda insulting, don’t you think?

    I can understand how you might feel that feminism has an anti-male prisim but, really, it doesn’t. The kyriarchy [http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/04/kyriarchy_not_p] hurts men too… no one benefits from the system of power that we have now, really, except for a handful of heterosexual cisgendered currently able-bodied white men who naturally fall into the narrowly defined roles that society has deemed acceptable for men. They’re probably just fine, but everyone else is being screwed over in some way or another and it sucks.

    This blog is open to everyone, but at the same time it is my space and I’d appreciate a little bit of civility of the people who choose to comment here… focusing ONLY on the frustration that you detected, and not at all on the content of what I was saying (like my explanations as to why your initial comment sparked frustration) is a debate tactic meant to make me look ridiculous and you look measured and calm and reasonable… I GET that. If you just want to win a debate, congrats, you played that well. If you want to have an actual dialogue, however, then your tactics are majorly standing in the way.

  9. RE: your comment: you “don’t consider feminist women good enough to actually consider being with in the long-term… which is kinda insulting, don’t you think?”

    Note that I did NOT say not “good enough”; I said “too much.” Most women don’t see things through a feminist “men should feel guilty for being born male” prism. Seeing patriarchical slights in every little benign thing would be too much for me. Somebody else may want that, and that’s his right. I prefer a relationship where we can debate but not attack each other for things we can’t control, such as our gender.

    I see no reason to feel guilty or apologize for being male. But, just this interchange with you gives me the feeling that you feel that I should. That’s what I mean by “too much.” There are loads of intelligent, capable women who simply don’t see the world that way, and that is my preference – frankly. I truly intend no offense but you asked for an explanation.

    I hope my candor is not taken as a lack of civility. However, you did ask.

  10. I have news for you: most FEMINISTS don’t see the world through a “men should feel guilty for being born male” prism but, rather, we see the world as a place where POWER STRUCTURES that are based on white, cisgender, heterosexual men being the ideal screw everyone over (even the white, cisgender, heterosexual men). The feminists I know don’t see “patriarchal slights” in each and every little thing, but we do see how this power structure influences our day-to-day actions, sure.

    Not ONCE in our exchange have I said something that has villanized you for being male… I was pissed at you for making what I maintain is a rude comment, sure, but I was annoyed because of that comment not because you have a penis. So, again, I would appreciate if you responded to what i wrote rather than the words you so generously put into my mouth.

  11. Feminists don’t get that they insult men who happen to be heterosexual, or white as people who are the ones who screw everyone else over. THAT is the attitude that most men simply don’t want to deal with in a marriage, since he’s obviously heterosexual and maybe even white (which I’m not).

    “The feminists I know don’t see “patriarchal slights” in each and every little thing, but we do see how this power structure influences our day-to-day actions, sure.

    OK, maybe not EVERY little thing. Put it this way: Feminists see “patriarchical slights” in many things that non-feminists don’t. I open a door for my date as a courtesy, because I like women, not because I look down on them.

    Feminists coined that as “benevolent sexism”, and have written books on that simple act that non-feminist love. (one reason feminism is unpopular with many women).

    I want my entire family to share the same last name. Per feminists, that’s a vestige of male oppression (or however they put it).

    I like, no love women. I simply can’t’ help it. For a night, it’s way easier to deal with a women like I would another guy, not rude but don’t go out of my way to do anything for him; s/he takes care of him/herself with doors, money for her/his own food, carrying her/his own stuff, doesn’t want me to pull the car up no matter how messy the weather is and what kind of shoes she’s wearing, doesn’t expect my jacket if s/he’s cold, etc. That’s super easy. But, I PERSONALLY don’t want to fight over so many little things as we invariably would if I were to slip up and open her door (for example). Life’s too short.

    Evidently some men want that life, just not me. No offense intended please.

  12. But, you see feminists WOULDN’T insult men who happen to be heterosexual or white (or cisgendered) if these insulted people would just LISTEN to the words we are saying. (For instance, from my LAST COMMENT: “we see the world as a place where POWER STRUCTURES that are based on white, cisgender, heterosexual men being the ideal screw everyone over (even the white, cisgender, heterosexual men).”) It’s not about you (despite your insistence on making it that way)! Its about the power structures that screw us all over.

    Benevolent sexism is a real issue, not because feminists have some anti door-opening agenda, but because plenty of studies show that people who are high in benevolent sexist attitudes are also high in hostile sexist attitudes. Now, this doesn’t mean that I automatically HATE anyone who opens a door for me (quite the obvious, I regard them as polite people… even if I do think the men who SPRINT to beat me to the door so they can be the one to open it are a bit silly). The action itself doesn’t phase me, because I’m no mindreader. What concerns me is when I get into conversations with the men (not all men, mind you) who feel that opening doors, picking up the tab, carrying things, etc. is their DUTY in life because women NEED THEM to do this… these are the kinds of guys likely to separate the world out into “ladies” (or whatever else they call the women they see as deserving of their efforts) and ball-busters (feminists, whatever you want to call it… women who don’t deserve their respect.) In the real world this CAN (doesn’t always, but as I said before studies have shown that it is more likely) play out in a number of terrifying scenarios, for instance people who feel a woman deserved her own sexual assault (before you ask: I KNOW men are assaulted too) because she was wearing too short a skirt/drinking/flirting/doing whatever else might make her seem like not-a-lady to them.

    Same thing with the last name issue – its not the action, its the intent. Plenty of heterosexual feminists take their husbands last name. Some heterosexual feminist men take their wives last name. I’m sure queer feminist couples would come up with all kinds of fun solutions to the last-name thing, if they were allowed to marry (hey, a feminist cause that has NOTHING TO DO with straight white dudes, imagine that!) Some feminist couples make a whole new last name up. Some feminist couples hyphenate. Some keep their own last names… just marrying a feminist does not ensure that your whole family won’t have the same last name, if that’s what you desire. I don’t see what could be wrong about looking at (and sometimes criticizing) our traditional practices and deciding if we want to participate based on what they mean to us.

    Some of those studies, before you have to ask (I’m just courteous like that):


  13. I must say that I respect you and true-blue feminists like you who reject such chivalrous acts because they are at least true to their ideology. There is nothing more annoying than hypocrites who claim to want feminist equality but who also lap up inequality when it is to their advantage. Some so-called feminists say that they expect, even demand chivalry, which is truly hypocritical. They really aren’t feminists at all.

    Nobody believes a women CAN’T open a door or pay a restaurant bill unless she’s disabled or unemployed or both. Although we probably are not going to agree on this issue, I think that my approach is one that feminists would/should favor. I treat them with the exact same courtesy I with which I treat men, which is very basic. No doors opened, jackets given if she’s chilly, dinners purchased, heavy parcels taken over, etc unless I’d do the same for a man.

    With respect to the name thing, there are certain things most people are OK with. I wear a tux and black shoes, she wears a dress and ballet slippers (or whatever), she carries the flowers and gets most of the pictures taken of her. I buy the diamond ring, she gets the diamond ring. She takes my name but gets to opt to stay at home for a few months after each child. I know you don’t agree with some of those things, but they go together. Now, if you reject the name thing, then the rest should be rejected as well, since each and every one implies a role based on gender.

  14. “Nobody believes a women CAN’T open a door or pay a restaurant bill unless she’s disabled or unemployed or both.” However, plenty believe that they SHOULDN’T. I have experienced this first-hand in the reactions that some people have to the fact that my partner and I often split the tab when we go out (and sometimes *gasp* I pay, or he pays, or whatever…) I believe that people should be free to make their own choices, but at the same time should understand the backdrop in which those choices are made.

    For instance: I wear a lot of skirts because I LIKE them, at the same time I appreciate the freedom to wear pants when I so desire and would never ridicule a man for experiencing the same freedom (choosing a skirt if he should desire). In my opinion clothing shouldn’t be a gendered choice, it should be an individual one. Same with last names and marriage, who bus the diamond ring, who decides to be the stay at home parent, etc. I feel as if we’d be much better off if these choices had no gender and, instead, were based on individual relationships and personalities.

    That IS feminism to me, removing all of the assumptions that we make about gender/sexual and affectional orientation/ethnicity/etc. and just letting individuals be individuals. That’s what feminism is to a lot of people, and I DON’T get how you could be against that…

  15. As I pointed out above, I support it for feminists and have no problem dealing with as I do men. However, I will point out hypocrisy, however – which you seem to not be. (I visited “thefrisky.com” and there are loads of so-called but not really feminists there who yammer on about equality but still demand their doors opened, to order first, etc. I can’t respect that hypocrisy).

    I am not against cross dressing or anything else for whomever chooses it. Wearing gowns, ballet slippers, and tiaras is just not my thing, sorry. ;-)

    I will say though that you’ve got your work cut out for you to convince the women that it’s really not necessary for him to buy her an engagement ring; rather it should be seen as just as viable for her to buy him a ladies ring, for him to wear the gown and tiara and for her to wear the tux, remove the garter from his leg, etc.

  16. You support what for feminists? I’m legitimately confused as to what you’re saying here… sorry.

    I’ll be the first to say that women who DEMAND chivalry but also want gender equality need more education, because once you understand the link between benevolent and hostile sexism you realize that the small benefits (like not opening doors) pale in comparison to the detriments (like being blamed for your own sexual assault). Most feminists however, the ones who have taken the time to educate themselves at least, don’t feel this way.

    As I have said over and over… feminism is about personal choice. My goal in life is not to get every dude out there in a pair of garters and a tiara, nor is it to convince all women to stop shaving and start saving for an engagement ring for their beau. My goal is a world where people are free to live as they choose, without being influenced by restrictive gender norms (for instance the idea that a diamond engagement ring is a “ladies” ring… what about a ring makes it female?)

    It seems as if that COULD be something we agree on, in which case, why does this argument persist?

  17. I support feminists not expecting or receiving chivalrous treatment (door opening, jacket sharing, dinner buying, etc.), which is unequal treatment based on gender – which is what they oppose, unless it’s exactly what a man would do for another man. If he wouldn’t do it for a man, she shouldn’t expect or desire it.

    I think we can agree on that. Yes?

  18. Almost. no chivalry . . for feminists. They get what men get, basic courtesy but nothing special. Non-feminists, on the other hand, and those of us who love the ladies are cool with chivalry.

  19. I believe in choice. Don’t you?

    Feminists choose total equality, and thereby reject chivalry. They should get what men get, nothing more, nothing less, and I treat them accordingly. However, non-feminists typically enjoy chivalry, and therefore should get it. I treat them accordingly.

    Both groups should be free to choose. What I believe.

  20. I believe that people should make choices based on individuals, not gender. For instance, in my relationship my partner almost always drives the car because I hate driving, it makes me nervous. Chivalry would dictate that he do this, but he does not do it because of some outdated misguided set of rules based on the idea that I am somehow weaker because of my vagina, he does this because as an individual I don’t like driving. Like I have been saying all along, it’s the attitudes not the actions that are the problem and by lumping women into two groups (“feminists” and “non feminists”) you are still treating them as monoliths, rather than individuals… not to mention you’re being inaccurate since men can be feminists too.

  21. I haven’t lumped anyone anywhere. I simply acknowledge what people call themselves. You call yourself a feminist whereas most women don’t. I respect your choice and theirs.

    You believe that chivalry is benevolent sexism, most women don’t. I respect your view and theirs.

    You insist on gender blind equality, most women don’t. Those are your and their choices. I am simply respecting yours and theirs.

    Therefore, feminists (those who say that chivalry is benevolent sexism) don’t get it from me any more than I would offer it to a man – I would never insult them in that way. Non-feminists enjoy chivalry and I offer it to them, out of respect for their wishes.

  22. The whole history of chivalry is based on benevolent sexist ideas… which means, in essence it is benevolent sexism (or, at the VERY least informed by benevolent sexism) let me ask you, WHY do you do these actions for all non-feminist women? What is your motivation? What makes these individuals more deserving/in need/ etc. of door opening/bill paying/whatever than non-feminist men?

  23. It’s about choice and respect. I respect their (non-feminists) choice to want to be treated like ladies. They don’t agree that it is sexism. I respect men’s choice to not be treated like ladies. Both deserve to have their choices respected. I thought you were for choice?

  24. Do you actually find out if these women WANT these things done for them, or do you just assume? I mean, if they want it done and you are doing it to make them happy that’s different, to me, than just treating all non-feminist women the same way because of the concept of chivalry (the roots of which, you still refuse to acknowledge). If you do it this way there actually is an element of choice, as opposed to assumptions…

  25. Yes, they enjoy and appreciate it, no assumptions made. It’s totally choice.

    I don’t know how many non-feminist women you know but I have never met one who considered her date opening a door for her to be “benevolent sexism” That’s a feminist concept and term. That’s fine with me since I don’t need to bother to think about courtesy with feminists but can enjoy the experience with non-feminists. It works out well for everyone.

  26. I know plenty of non-feminist women and men and, you’re right, I’ve never met one who considers opening a door “benevolent sexism” I have met women, however, who don’t identify as feminists but are creeped out by dates who always INSIST on paying for everything (including one friend who’s boyfriend would rather go into massive debt then ever have her foot the bill on a date/go without an elabrate Christmas/birthday gift).

    That’s been my point all along: chivalrous acts opening doors, paying, what have you are FINE so long as they’ve been negotiated within the context of the relationship (not that you have to draw up a contract but, for instance, maybe having a conversation when the check comes where you decide who wants to foot the bill). When these acts are done because they make all people involved happy, that’s great… when they’re done indiscriminately because of the historically sexist ideals of chivalry, not so great.

    As I said before, its the attitude of chivalry and it’s sexist history that I take issue with, not the act of someone who happens to identify as male opening doors, paying a bill, whatever.

    With this I’m going to have to cut the exchange off because I feel like we’re going in circles a bit here, you’re welcome to comment of course but unless something new comes up I’m going to go back to studying for finals now…

  27. The example of the young man you cite does nothing to show that he is prejudiced or discriminates based on sex (aka sexism). Wanting to give a large gift doesn’t mean that the giver is sexist, racist, or any other ist. Maybe they have poor judgement is all.

    Happy studying! :-)

  28. The example doesn’t show that because his personality/intention wasn’t my point, my point was that my friend (a “lady”) told him several times that she didn’t want him going into debt for her and was, subsequently creeped out/pissed off when he ignored her requests citing “chivalry” as the reason why he was obligated to buy her shit. I was using this as an example for this point: “When these acts are done because they make all people involved happy, that’s great… when they’re done indiscriminately because of the historically sexist ideals of chivalry, not so great.”

    The acts were not inherently creepy, they were creepy in the fact that SHE DIDN’T WANT THEM but they still happened. I said all of this above but I wanted to clarify because your comment indicates that you didn’t seem t get it… now back to the books!

  29. If she is “creeped out” by his desire to by her things, they are not well suited. That’s all that means. There is nothing abusive or demeaning about his desire to buy things for her. I get that. They just don’t see things the same way. She may be better off finding someone that prefers going dutch and he may be better off finding someone that enjoys being treated.

  30. There is nothing abusive or demeaning about his desire to buy her things, no, but his refusal to respect her wishes and stop when she asks him to does show a disregard for her feelings and opinions which is not okay. Again, THAT, was my point. I will say it again: the actions (giving gifts etc.) are not the issue, it’s the attitudes that are… chivalry is based on the idea that these actions are required because the sexist beliefs that chivalry was founded on informed it in that way. If you and your partner are happy with you opening doors for her, paying, doing whatever then that is FINE but if she asked you not to I would hope you’d be a decent enough guy to respect her wishes. That was my point here… the guy in the example wasn’t suited for my friend because he didn’t RESPECT HER WISHES not because he bought her things.

  31. As I said, and you agree, they aren’t suited for each other. Neither is respecting the wishes of the other. He wants to extend courtesy, kindness, and generosity but she doesn’t want it.

    I’m sure he can find a lady who would be thrilled to be treated as he wishes to treat his lady friend, and she can easily find a guy who is more than happy to go dutch and let her open her own doors.

  32. There’s a difference between respectfully asking your partner to stop buying you stuff (especially when he is already in serious debt) and just ignoring what your partner asked and continuing to buy the stuff. Disagreeing with someone’s desires doesn’t make you disrespectful… ignoring them and doing what you want anyway, that is disrespectful. THAT was my point.

    I am ending this now and closing comments on this thread because at this point the conversation has MAJORLY de-railed from a conversation about feminist-friendly dating, to a debate about chivalry, to whatever this is now. Since I can see that you never actually plan to address my comments about the history and origins of chivalry, I think we’re done here.

Comments are closed.