http://www.buffalonews.com/life/columns-advice/miss-manners/article194704.e=
ce
Dear Miss Manners: Since this is the 21st century and not the 18th
century, I thought that perhaps women’s thinking had changed.
Evidently, when it comes to spending money on others, it hasn’t.
I would like to know the correct way to entertain the opposite sex
when the woman insists on being a “friend” and not a “date.”
A woman who be-came a widow two years ago, and evidently is still in
mourning does not want to use the term “dating,” so she would like to
go for meals with me but feels I should pay the entire check. I told
her that since she insists on our being friends and not dating, that
the situation changes and that she should split the check with me.
After all, don’t friends always split checks? And, as a friend, I
wouldn’t even get a good night kiss since I wouldn’t be considered her
date. Your opinion?
Gentle Reader: You had Miss Manners on your side until the good night
kiss.
Before that, she was willing to overlook your strange historical
presumptions in the interest of the eternal virtue of fairness. But
perhaps we need to revisit them.
There was no dating in the 18th century, or, for that matter, in the
19th. Respectable ladies were courted by gentleman who paid calls on
them at home, which meant that the ladies’ parents bore the expense of
whatever refreshments were needed to keep them at the task.
If the courtship was successful, the gentleman reciprocated by
supporting the lady for the rest of her born days.
All right: not so fair................
(snip)
You can read the remaining 2/3 of MM's response at the link.
I only wish she had mentioned that, even in better economic times,
there are plenty of egalitarian men and women who deeply resent the
idea that dating has to involve spending money, per se, more than once
a month at the most. Especially if the couple breaks up and you have
to start looking for someone else. After all, if you date 100 people
before marriage and most or all of the outings cost money, that's a
lot of money you've lost on the wrong people. Especially if you're a
man who lets himself get guilt-tripped into paying for everything.
Lenona.
> http://www.buffalonews.com/life/columns-advice/miss-manners/article19 ...
> Dear Miss Manners: Since this is the 21st century and not the 18th
> century, I thought that perhaps women’s thinking had changed.
> Evidently, when it comes to spending money on others, it hasn’t.
> I would like to know the correct way to entertain the opposite sex
> when the woman insists on being a “friend” and not a “date.”
> A woman who be-came a widow two years ago, and evidently is still in
> mourning does not want to use the term “dating,” so she would like to
> go for meals with me but feels I should pay the entire check. I told
> her that since she insists on our being friends and not dating, that
> the situation changes and that she should split the check with me.
> After all, don’t friends always split checks? And, as a friend, I
> wouldn’t even get a good night kiss since I wouldn’t be considered her
> date. Your opinion?
> Gentle Reader: You had Miss Manners on your side until the good night
> kiss.
> Before that, she was willing to overlook your strange historical
> presumptions in the interest of the eternal virtue of fairness. But
> perhaps we need to revisit them.
> There was no dating in the 18th century, or, for that matter, in the
> 19th. Respectable ladies were courted by gentleman who paid calls on
> them at home, which meant that the ladies’ parents bore the expense of
> whatever refreshments were needed to keep them at the task.
> If the courtship was successful, the gentleman reciprocated by
> supporting the lady for the rest of her born days.
> All right: not so fair................
> (snip)
> You can read the remaining 2/3 of MM's response at the link.
> I only wish she had mentioned that, even in better economic times,
> there are plenty of egalitarian men and women who deeply resent the
> idea that dating has to involve spending money, per se, more than once
> a month at the most. Especially if the couple breaks up and you have
> to start looking for someone else. After all, if you date 100 people
> before marriage and most or all of the outings cost money, that's a
> lot of money you've lost on the wrong people. Especially if you're a
> man who lets himself get guilt-tripped into paying for everything.
> Lenona.
This is why some people prefer straight up pay for play.
> Dear Miss Manners: Since this is the 21st century and not the 18th
> century, I thought that perhaps women’s thinking had changed.
> Evidently, when it comes to spending money on others, it hasn’t.
> I would like to know the correct way to entertain the opposite sex
> when the woman insists on being a “friend” and not a “date.”
> A woman who be-came a widow two years ago, and evidently is still in
> mourning does not want to use the term “dating,” so she would like to
> go for meals with me but feels I should pay the entire check. I told
> her that since she insists on our being friends and not dating, that
> the situation changes and that she should split the check with me.
> After all, don’t friends always split checks? And, as a friend, I
> wouldn’t even get a good night kiss since I wouldn’t be considered her
> date. Your opinion?
> Gentle Reader: You had Miss Manners on your side until the good night
> kiss.
> Before that, she was willing to overlook your strange historical
> presumptions in the interest of the eternal virtue of fairness. But
> perhaps we need to revisit them.
> There was no dating in the 18th century, or, for that matter, in the
> 19th. Respectable ladies were courted by gentleman who paid calls on
> them at home, which meant that the ladies’ parents bore the expense of
> whatever refreshments were needed to keep them at the task.
> If the courtship was successful, the gentleman reciprocated by
> supporting the lady for the rest of her born days.
> All right: not so fair................
> (snip)
> You can read the remaining 2/3 of MM's response at the link.
> I only wish she had mentioned that, even in better economic times,
> there are plenty of egalitarian men and women who deeply resent the
> idea that dating has to involve spending money, per se, more than once
> a month at the most. Especially if the couple breaks up and you have
> to start looking for someone else. After all, if you date 100 people
> before marriage and most or all of the outings cost money, that's a
> lot of money you've lost on the wrong people. Especially if you're a
> man who lets himself get guilt-tripped into paying for everything.
> Lenona.