Donald B. Jeffries
Executive Director
Mariposa Men’s Wellness Institute
Author’s Preface: In order to understand the basis of this treatise, it is important for me to give the reader a bit of background about myself and the essay. As a male incest survivor, I have a uniquely negative view of traditional dating, sexual, and relationship patterns. Part of my own views were heavily influenced by the sexual abuse I experienced at the hands of my mother (which I’ve discussed at length in various blogs on this website). I came to see the “sexual servicing of females” as my ‘job’, not as pleasure in any objective sense. Whenever I would ask women whom I dated for their emotional investment in our relationship, I was more often than not met with derision than interest, as though I had just cracked a more significantly humorous joke.
As the years of dating progressed, I began to wonder what I was getting ‘in return’ for all the ‘output’ that I was expected to give the relationship. I wanted an equal relationship - a truly equal one, not simply one that was more equal for women alone - but the ‘setup’ of the culture was to portray relationships which were unequal for both partners, though in gender specific ways.
The other issue that the reader needs to understand is the specific rationale for this treatise. I had been meeting a number of women in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where I lived for 29 years of my adult life, who were, in the main (in spite of assertions about being feminists - a quality that I was greatly attracted to) very traditional when it came to who’s responsibility it was to perform various tasks in an intimate relationship. Those tasks were, in their view, quite gender-specific based. And in spite of saying they were feminists, they still expected me to pay for dates, no matter what. This irritated me to no end.
From my perspective, equality meant just that, and my belief was that that quality should apply to all matters financial, sexual, emotional, political, and spiritual. This treatise was written, as a whole piece, one night after I had met yet another woman who demanded that I pay for dates we went on (I had met this woman through the singles ads, a route that I made use of many times by the mid-1980’s). I was quite angered by this demand, and the more I thought about it - as yet another demand from yet another woman in Albuquerque - the more livid I became. So, I wrote this treatise and gave it to her at our subsequent meeting. Needless to say, it was the last time she talked to me (given our vastly different perspectives on the nature of dating relationships).
This original version contained a fair amount of vitrol, given the mental state I was in when I wrote it. I’ve thought over the years since that maybe I should remove that anger to make the treatise more ‘acceptable’ to a larger audience, but I realize at this point that doing so would remove the ‘punch’ that I fully intended for the writing to have. Therefore, I’ve decided to leave it as I originally wrote it, with the addition of this explanatory Preface.
The one significant modification I have allowed myself, though, is to parse the piece by taking out those elements which could be better developed in their own sections, since the original treatise contained so many different elements. Therefore, I’ve broken the original writing - which was originally entitled “Dutch Dating: Why I Prefer It” - into three essays: Equitable Dating, Equitable Sexuality, and Equitable Relationships. I think this will make the ideas more accessible to the general reader, and allows me to more thoughtfully address those components in greater detail.
Should any readers have comments about the pieces - or anything else contained in this website - I would encourage them to feel free to address those comments the author (myself, as Executive Director of the nonprofit for which this website is addressed) at: wellness@mmwi-stl.org. If you want some sort of reply to your posting, let me know; otherwise I will simply enjoy your observations, and to the extent possible - or to the extent I consider them relevant to the mission of the organization - will incorporate those perspectives in the website construction.
A final comment: The original intent was to pose “traditional arguments” about why men should pay for dates and then respond to those demands with my own perspectives. Hence, the whole of the piece is arranged as in a question & answer format.
Equitable Dating:
Delineating Traditional Arguments vs. My Response
(Concerning Financial Expenses of Dating/Interpersonal Relationships)
1. Men should pay for dates with women.
Why? Where is it known to be some sort of biological or cosmological fact that the creatures with penises should pay for time spent with the creatures with vulvas? Why are those possessing penises any more responsible for footing the common expense than those with vulvas? Why does having a penis make me any less ‘valuable’ (having to pay for dates) or any more ‘valuable’ (being in control of events during dates) than having a vulva? Because, after all, that is the main difference between men and women. (In most other ways, they are incredibly similar beings, with rather minor, mainly cultural, variations.)
Some say men should just pay for at least the initial date, just to minimize the conflict and because it is socially expected. But from my standpoint, initial impressions can only be made once, and regardless of the behavior, are hard to counteract later. So, why pay for even the first date, and give the false impression [false at least for me] that I have any desire to do so again in the future?
2. Men should pay, because they make more money.
Really, in all cases? What if the couple makes approximately the same salary? Should the man still be expected to foot the expense of the dating?
What happens if two people are dating and a woman earns the greater salary? Should she be expected to foot all the expense (or the majority of the expense) of two people spending time together? And, if not, is there a double standard?
If the rule were that “those who make more should pay for a greater portion”, this would only be reasonable if the woman involved was equally as willing to date men who made less than her, as those making the same salary or more than her. But if she - like so many women who are socialized to seek out men who make a greater salary than themselves, because the men are viewed as ‘good providers’ - refuses to date men who make less than her, than the rule of “who makes more should pay more” becomes just a weak excuse for getting out of paying a reasonable portion.
[I had a female partner, years ago, who had a modification on this kind of argument. She argued that “if the guy makes $30,000 a year and I make $20,000 a year, then he should pay a third more for the dates.” I thought that sounded, on the face of it, somewhat reasonable. Then I posed a counter argument. I said “What is you made $30,000 a year and the guy made $20,000; would you then be willing to pay a third more than him?” She said no way would she be willing to do that, because she didn’t date men who made less than her. So, I said “Ah, I now see that in fact what originally appeared to be a rational argument is in fact just a double standard. Your argument only applies to men, since like most women you seek male partners who make more than you.]
Mariposa Men’s Wellness Institute was founded in 2001
to help men become emotionally healthy.
Equitable Dating:
Page 1
