Should a man pay for a woman?
Girls not only want him to take out a wallet on a first date with a broad gesture to “show their worth”, but also often took it out on a second and tenth date, emptying a card for travel, gifts, and so on. But, what is interesting, if you interview older women who have been married for a long time and work, they just will not deny the idea of paying equally with such bitchiness, and even list several stories as they paid to difficult ones. times for their husbands or they made them more expensive presents than they received in return.
What turns out: the test of male solvency and willingness to fork out is only one type of “copper pipes” that a candidate goes through at the selection stage, and then the requirements can be underestimated when he becomes “nice” and “family”? And what is hidden under the statement “a man should pay for a woman” - a stereotype, cultural tradition or a banal mathematical calculation, according to the results of which the one who earns more should spend? We decided to reflect on this topic.
Who pays is cool (only if it is not a woman)
Try to tell some of your conservative-minded acquaintance a fictional story about a wealthy woman who found herself a nice, but poor boyfriend without work, settled him in her apartment and paid for their joint life. You will immediately hear the exclamation “Wow!”, Then you will be given the characteristic “Here is a fool” or “Unhappy, tired, probably normal to look for,” and then suspicions of the insidious plans of a man in the style “And he, a slacker, pretty good at it. ” If you are in a conversation, ask your interlocutor to present a reverse alignment (a wealthy man pays, a girl without work is content) and ask why you should not criticize him, then the answer will be the same: “No, well, there is a difference, here is a woman, and there is a man there. ” And no nails!
A man who pays for a pretty young slacker, he is cool, he lives his life in abundance and gets himself a nice "accessory" as a life companion who, however, the gym and shoes need to pay, but a clean apartment, a warm dinner and ironed shirts - free bonus.For some reason, a woman who pays is always a loser in our eyes, agreeing to what is, deceived, not finding her “true love”. Even if she has money, even if he is accustomed to it and cook and wash the dishes, even if sex with him is better than with a big-bellied banker with a golden card. She is certainly charged that she should be unhappy in such “non-traditional” economically, and he should be a scum if she is not looking for work and allows a woman to pay for herself. Is it possible that one can not be what can be different, only because of the shape of the genitals?
Poor to not be a vice (only if you are not a man)
As a child, we were explained that the family is a union of two halves with completely different functions, where the pope is strong and the mother is beautiful, and like the colors in yin and yang, the functions of these halves are not interchangeable - they are either black or white. That is, dad works on the annual premium, and mom sings beautiful lullabies and prepares delicious cakes. As you can guess from the statistics, where every second marriage ends in divorce, my mom very soon had to take on both bonuses and lullabies and pies, and raising their daughters, they decided to deliver at least one truth to them: before getting involved with a man in relationship, you need to "scan."If a test, for example, of loyalty or a gentle attitude to children can take weeks, or even years, then you can make sure of financial solvency in just an hour - go to dinner with him, and as soon as they bring the bill, lowered their eyes and smile.
You will say that money and love for children are too different things, but in our country, as in any state with rather sluggish social guarantees, money is decisive, and the conclusion is constructed this way: if he does not like children, then with money at least he will pay them a good nanny and buy a lot of gifts, and without money from him there is nothing to take. An inseparable couple “man - money” is built on the idea that a man MUST earn a lot, otherwise he is not a man.
Masculinity is built on capital, femininity is on motherhood, and if this scheme does not suit you, then get ready to hear “Here is a fool” or even more meaningful “You are still young, and then you live and change your point of view”
So pay for yourself or not pay?
In the end, everyone will give himself the answer to this question and make up his own set of arguments: from “This is the one who chose the place, it means he pays” to “For food and an apartment he pays, and I buy desserts, underwear and condoms” .Someone even regret the men and soberly put the difference in wages as a decisive factor. "He said that now they cut him down, and I decided to treat him, poor man." We, of course, are not Swedes and Swedes will never be, but from here to try on their argument on the topic "Who pays?" It becomes even more interesting than trying on the shapeless hoodies of Swedish designers. For example, the main argument: to pay for oneself is to show one’s independence.
Like, you, young man, can at least foie gras, even ribs to order, and me and my salad alone are fine, and after a date I go not to where you tell the taxi driver and pay a taxi, but in the movies with your friends
If a man still wants to pay, then this does not mean his bad manners or that he does not like you - it does not say anything at all. But if a girl gets her wallet and puts her share, it just says a lot, namely that neither tonight, nor night of the next year, the script "who pays, orders music" and the subsequent "I told you where your place is not gonna happen.
What if your child falls in love
Features of cooking flavored latte
Slate - a trendy accent in the interior
Karelia is a great place to relax
Quiz: Do you know the Solar System well?
How to choose a beautiful evening dress for girls in position
Street vendor turns old slippers into something unusual