JustErin said:

My views on men being expected to pay are not even close to being radical. And you brought up child support as a way of insinuating that I think a man having to pay support is somehow expecting too much....otherwise you would not have brought it up. And I'm referring to the fact that I do not agree with 99% of your opinions posted on here....so it's not surprising to me that you really do not seem to understand what I am saying.

I brought up child support, and valentine's day which you conveniently ignore, as a way of saying DIRECTLY, that you've potentially got some strange ideas about women that someone as moderate as myself can't fathom.

So 99% huh? Wow, I got JustErin to agree with 1% of my posts! Its the Weezy adoration posts isn't it? Yeah, he a sexy I can see how that would turn you on.

I'm over him though. I've come to the conclusion that he is not dating material.

The way some of you talk it's like someone is forcing you to go out with them rather than you agreeing to go out with someone who has asked you to go out with them. By agreeing, you are 50% responsible for creating that evening out, so why is it such a hard push to accept the concept of being 50% responsible for paying for the evening?

ConsciousContact said:

The way some of you talk it's like someone is forcing you to go out with them rather than you agreeing to go out with someone who has asked you to go out with them. By agreeing, you are 50% responsible for creating that evening out, so why is it such a hard push to accept the concept of being 50% responsible for paying for the evening?

If only we could apply that 50/50 mentallity to everything in life.

For instance, if you apply and are hired for a job then you should only get paid 50% of the wages since, YOU AGREED to work there.

If you're the passenger in a car where the driver incurs a ticket for a violation, then you should pay half the ticket since you occupied half the car.

If a doctor engages in malpractice and you as the patient sue him, you're only entitled to 50% compensation because you agreed to be treated by him.

If a married couple who have twin children divorce, then the kids should be split between each parent. You can't get any more 50/50 than that.

JustErin said:

PunkMistress said:

Doesn't he already have three of them?

And none of those chicks were awesome. They were all ugly, dirty, stupid whores.

Face it, Erin.

You married a pathetic, undesirable loser.

Clearly.

This thread is crazytown.

Deadflow3r said:

paintedlady said:

A twist on what you just said...

IMHO I think men are sick of women expecting lobster/steak dinners, especially if they only have hamburger/pizza money due to their own obligations...

I never had an issue with a man paying on a couple of dates when I first meet a guy, I am not picky on where we go... a cheap diner of fancy joint, its all fine with me. Its depends on his tastes.

I've never had to have a conversation for me to pay anything on a first date, guys just tend to work with what they got... I always did the same too.

But

There are also men that only appeal to women once she finds out he can afford the caviar; then he starts looking attractive to her. If I was a wealthy man I would not play "Mr Goodnight" and flash all my luxuries around because then you attract materialistic types who look a bit like Mel Gibsons ex.

So, if a wealthy man decided NOT to spend money on me in large amounts and instead opts for pizza, I would see that as his way of saying "This isn't about feeding your poor ass; I am trying to see if I actually can connect with you". LA is not the only city full of ladies who have their man game down to a science. If he simply wanted to feed a bunch of broke ass bitches there are plenty of shelters that would gladly take his money and unlike giving to the gold-digger, those contributions would be tax deductable.

Exactly... this goes without saying.

But it seems wrong to some here that if a woman expect a free meal (what ever that meal may be) that she is some type of gold digger who is comprimising her true values if she expect anything from a man that wants to know her.

I think not... but I am old fashioned, and the men I date are old-fashioned as well... because the men I know will consider some women a "cheap date" and treat her accordingly. Its a ritual and old one that is probably meeting its end...

but as for me its a ritual I practice since I don't date younger men. Even though all the younger men I know actually like to spend too much money on women... sometime's in foolish ways. So a smart man will not throw all his money at a woman, nor should he be expected to...

but I do not see a woman as a gold digger if she expects to be treated to a meal on a first date.

I myself am like that and I don't care if its a hotdog or lobster... its the principal of the matter, its an old practice but not one that should be compared to a gold-digger's mentality.

I also don't chase after men in fancy cars either.

But its funny how we let men off if they say...

"Oh she's fat, she's not good for me"

"Oh she has kids... no way"

"A woman needs to know how to cook if she wants to be with me"

how progressive are we really?

ironic... its also ironic how traditional we women get when we expect a shiny rock on our finger.. oh the diamonds!!! Oh yes.... we have no problems with "tradition" then.

paintedlady said:

Deadflow3r said:

But

There are also men that only appeal to women once she finds out he can afford the caviar; then he starts looking attractive to her. If I was a wealthy man I would not play "Mr Goodnight" and flash all my luxuries around because then you attract materialistic types who look a bit like Mel Gibsons ex.

So, if a wealthy man decided NOT to spend money on me in large amounts and instead opts for pizza, I would see that as his way of saying "This isn't about feeding your poor ass; I am trying to see if I actually can connect with you". LA is not the only city full of ladies who have their man game down to a science. If he simply wanted to feed a bunch of broke ass bitches there are plenty of shelters that would gladly take his money and unlike giving to the gold-digger, those contributions would be tax deductable.

Exactly... this goes without saying.

But it seems wrong to some here that if a woman expect a free meal (what ever that meal may be) that she is some type of gold digger who is comprimising her true values if she expect anything from a man that wants to know her.

I think not... but I am old fashioned, and the men I date are old-fashioned as well... because the men I know will consider some women a "cheap date" and treat her accordingly. Its a ritual and old one that is probably meeting its end...

but as for me its a ritual I practice since I don't date younger men. Even though all the younger men I know actually like to spend too much money on women... sometime's in foolish ways. So a smart man will not throw all his money at a woman, nor should he be expected to...

but I do not see a woman as a gold digger if she expects to be treated to a meal on a first date.

I myself am like that and I don't care if its a hotdog or lobster... its the principal of the matter, its an old practice but not one that should be compared to a gold-digger's mentality.

I also don't chase after men in fancy cars either.

But its funny how we let men off if they say...

"Oh she's fat, she's not good for me"

"Oh she has kids... no way"

"A woman needs to know how to cook if she wants to be with me"

how progressive are we really?

ironic... its also ironic how traditional we women get when we expect a shiny rock on our finger.. oh the diamonds!!! Oh yes.... we have no problems with "tradition" then.

^ We also let men off when they voice their disapproval of a woman who makes more money than them or has more education. Then we criticize women for wanting a man who has a good job and education past the 10th grade.

HotGritz said:

^ We also let men off when they voice their disapproval of a woman who makes more money than them or has more education. Then we criticize women for wanting a man who has a good job and education past the 10th grade.

Shit, how many women expect engagement rings... no wait... "that's different"

HotGritz said:

ConsciousContact said:

The way some of you talk it's like someone is forcing you to go out with them rather than you agreeing to go out with someone who has asked you to go out with them. By agreeing, you are 50% responsible for creating that evening out, so why is it such a hard push to accept the concept of being 50% responsible for paying for the evening?

If only we could apply that 50/50 mentallity to everything in life.

For instance, if you apply and are hired for a job then you should only get paid 50% of the wages since, YOU AGREED to work there.

If you're the passenger in a car where the driver incurs a ticket for a violation, then you should pay half the ticket since you occupied half the car.

If a doctor engages in malpractice and you as the patient sue him, you're only entitled to 50% compensation because you agreed to be treated by him.

If a married couple who have twin children divorce, then the kids should be split between each parent. You can't get any more 50/50 than that.

But parents do split custody.

But passengers in cars ARE susceptible to traffic laws.

But malpractice CREATES the inequity and the payment from the judgment equalizes it.

But of COURSE you get paid 100% of your wage - your wage is a much smaller fraction than 50% of the income derived from YOUR OUTPUT.

You are smarter than this. It seems like you just throw things out there to be sassy sometimes, which is cool, but please. Inject the logic more often. You know damn well that the situations you list are not at all equal to a 50/50 agreement to go out to dinner. You are exploring him as much as he is exploring you.

"Who's zoomin' who?"

Spinlight said:

HotGritz said:

If only we could apply that 50/50 mentallity to everything in life.

For instance, if you apply and are hired for a job then you should only get paid 50% of the wages since, YOU AGREED to work there.

If you're the passenger in a car where the driver incurs a ticket for a violation, then you should pay half the ticket since you occupied half the car.

If a doctor engages in malpractice and you as the patient sue him, you're only entitled to 50% compensation because you agreed to be treated by him.

If a married couple who have twin children divorce, then the kids should be split between each parent. You can't get any more 50/50 than that.

But parents do split custody.

But passengers in cars ARE susceptible to traffic laws.

But malpractice CREATES the inequity and the payment from the judgment equalizes it.

But of COURSE you get paid 100% of your wage - your wage is a much smaller fraction than 50% of the income derived from YOUR OUTPUT.

You are smarter than this. It seems like you just throw things out there to be sassy sometimes, which is cool, but please. Inject the logic more often. You know damn well that the situations you list are not at all equal to a 50/50 agreement to go out to dinner. You are exploring him as much as he is exploring you.

"Who's zoomin' who?"

But she makes a good point...

in the dating world, fat women are still not considered as sexy as slimmer women. Men still expect women to "dress up" and be present a sexy image, so women wear hurtful high heels and push-up bras to impress a mate.

Could a woman be as desirable if she let her grays show? How about if she didn't wax off her mustache?

Some men are still hard-wired to think in more traditional ways and we pick and choose what we accept in our dating regimes.

I mean, is it REALLY equal? If it is then why do men still buy women diamond rings? That an expensive tradition. You bet women are holding on to that tradition with a kung-fu grip and you better not call her "tacky" or a "gold-digger" for expecting that.

Women would fight for the right to get their shiny rocks... so really how progressive are we?

Spinlight said:

HotGritz said:

If only we could apply that 50/50 mentallity to everything in life.

For instance, if you apply and are hired for a job then you should only get paid 50% of the wages since, YOU AGREED to work there.

If you're the passenger in a car where the driver incurs a ticket for a violation, then you should pay half the ticket since you occupied half the car.

If a doctor engages in malpractice and you as the patient sue him, you're only entitled to 50% compensation because you agreed to be treated by him.

If a married couple who have twin children divorce, then the kids should be split between each parent. You can't get any more 50/50 than that.

But parents do split custody. I'm talking each parent gets one kid. Case closed.

But passengers in cars ARE susceptible to traffic laws. Not as a rule they aren't. You'd have to have some sort of drug charge going on or the car would be in your name with insufficient insurance/registration but a routine traffic stop? Hardly.

But malpractice CREATES the inequity and the payment from the judgment equalizes it.

But of COURSE you get paid 100% of your wage - your wage is a much smaller fraction than 50% of the income derived from YOUR OUTPUT. Irrelevant under Conscious' argument. If you agree to something then you are 50% responsible so therefore you only get half in each circumstance mentioned above.

You are smarter than this. WAY SMARTER! However the lunacy in this thread from those of you who have a problem with courtship between men and women and the mere idea of a man paying for dinner/movies or whatever the "date" entails deserves the appropriate response. In this case, crazy gets crazy.

It seems like you just throw things out there to be sassy sometimes, which is cool, but please. Inject the logic more often. That's a joke right? You're joking! I love it. I wondered if you had a sense of humor. Sometimes you sound like you actually believe what you type.

You know damn well that the situations you list are not at all equal to a 50/50 agreement to go out to dinner. You are exploring him as much as he is exploring you. Exploring? So then what's your problem? If, as part of the exploration, the man wants to pay on the first date or the woman expects that the man who is trying to "explore" her should pay on the first date or even any date be it first or last, why do you have a problem with that?

"Who's zoomin' who?" I prefer Pink Cadillac and Jump To it myself. In each song, the man had no problem playing his role.

paintedlady said:

HotGritz said:

^ We also let men off when they voice their disapproval of a woman who makes more money than them or has more education. Then we criticize women for wanting a man who has a good job and education past the 10th grade.

Shit, how many women expect engagement rings... no wait... "that's different"

How many men buy the engagement ring before they even propose? But yep, that's different.

And to think it all starts with a first date where the man pays.

I heard this rumor, now mind you its only a rumor, but.....there are some men that actually buy the groceries for the household.

Ooh ooh, and I also heard, OMG ur gonna love this! Some men actually want their wives to stay home and raise the children while the man goes out and earns the money!

There are even teenage boys out there picking girls up for dates and not even asking for gas money!

I tell you this new age shit got me fucked up!!!!!

PunkMistress said:

JustErin said:

Face it, Erin.

You married a pathetic, undesirable loser.

Clearly.

This thread is crazytown.

I know, eh?

People simply stating that they feel the expectation is silly are being accused of thinking men shouldn't pay, of not believing in courtship or romance and blah, blah, blah. It really can't be any more simple, but you know...this is the org.

You've got a great catch and people who know Chris know this.

HotGritz said:

paintedlady said:

Shit, how many women expect engagement rings... no wait... "that's different"

How many men buy the engagement ring before they even propose? But yep, that's different.

And to think it all starts with a first date where the man pays.

I heard this rumor, now mind you its only a rumor, but.....there are some men that actually buy the groceries for the household.

Ooh ooh, and I also heard, OMG ur gonna love this! Some men actually want their wives to stay home and raise the children while the man goes out and earns the money!

There are even teenage boys out there picking girls up for dates and not even asking for gas money!

I tell you this new age shit got me fucked up!!!!!

I love how a man paying for my meal makes me a ho... but not roamntic...

also... because my pussy is what I give up after ONE meal.

XxaxX said it right.... we pay our own way 50-50, then we are just hanging out. There is no "romance" in that.

I wanna see roll call on the women who pay 1/2 on their engagement rings...

JustErin said:

PunkMistress said:

Clearly.

This thread is crazytown.

I know, eh?

People simply stating that they feel the expectation is silly are being accused of thinking men shouldn't pay, of not believing in courtship or romance and blah, blah, blah. It really can't be any more simple, but you know...this is the org.

You've got a great catch and people who know Chris know this.

People saying Chris ISN'T a great catch? Who called Erin a loser? LEAPS I tell ya!

See, that is the same as the crazy shit being said that women who get a free dinner on a first date is a gold-digging skank ho.

See how that works?

paintedlady said:

HotGritz said:

How many men buy the engagement ring before they even propose? But yep, that's different.

And to think it all starts with a first date where the man pays.

I heard this rumor, now mind you its only a rumor, but.....there are some men that actually buy the groceries for the household.

Ooh ooh, and I also heard, OMG ur gonna love this! Some men actually want their wives to stay home and raise the children while the man goes out and earns the money!

There are even teenage boys out there picking girls up for dates and not even asking for gas money!

I tell you this new age shit got me fucked up!!!!!

I love how a man paying for my meal makes me a ho... but not roamntic...

also... because my pussy is what I give up after ONE meal.

XxaxX said it right.... we pay our own way 50-50, then we are just hanging out. There is no "romance" in that.

I wanna see roll call on the women who pay 1/2 on their engagement rings...

It makes you a gold-digging ho with entitlement issues.

Oh and ur not supposed to give up your pussy after one meal or any meal. You're supposed to just lay it on the sidewalk and see if its something HE's interested in. If not, then its because you didn't lay it the right way on the sidewalk.

Not only do I want to see roll call on the women who pay 1/2 on their engagement rings, I want to see roll call for the women who paid for their engagement rings in FULL.

I have a feeling though, the roll call for the women waiting on dude to call is probably a lot longer.

paintedlady said:

JustErin said:

I know, eh?

People simply stating that they feel the expectation is silly are being accused of thinking men shouldn't pay, of not believing in courtship or romance and blah, blah, blah. It really can't be any more simple, but you know...this is the org.

You've got a great catch and people who know Chris know this.

People saying Chris ISN'T a great catch? Who called Erin a loser? LEAPS I tell ya!

See, that is the same as the crazy shit being said that women who get a free dinner on a first date is a gold-digging skank ho.

See how that works?

Go ahead and respond to whoever made that claim because I never said that.

PunkMistress said:

HotGritz said:

But you see....because they expected you to pay, since you asked THEM on the date, doesn't change the fact that they were probably awesome too. In fact, they were more awesome because you asked them on the date....they didn't ask you. If you want to spend time with her badly enough, you're gonna pay be you broke or not. There's dates you can go on that don't require a lot of money but you were just trying to get over on the chick then yeah,,,she's going to shun you. And when you have daughters of your own, trust and believe you are going to want some guy to think your baby girl is worthy paying for a date.

Doesn't he already have three of them?

And none of those chicks were awesome. They were all ugly, dirty, stupid whores.

This is where the thread starts to go wrong, very, very wrong.

People getting flippant and sarcastic and I start loosing the point.

Only desperate men willing to take whomever settles for them are asking out ugly dirty stupid whores.

What am i to believe is happening in this exchange????

JustErin said:

paintedlady said:

People saying Chris ISN'T a great catch? Who called Erin a loser? LEAPS I tell ya!

See, that is the same as the crazy shit being said that women who get a free dinner on a first date is a gold-digging skank ho.

See how that works?

Go ahead and respond to whoever made that claim because I never said that.

Your words were pathetic, undesireable loser which sounds alot worse than not being a great catch. You said that in reference to Erin's husband.

Now perhaps you were jesting but still, a leap was made and there were grand craters within your logic.

It is rather ridiculous for either of you to even bring up one's husband in this discussion about dating etiquette and this disagreement about who should pay on a date and when, unless....her man got serious issues with money and how he treats her. I'd save that for another thread. It might scare Funkay7 from dating altogether and we don't want to do that.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JustErin said:

paintedlady said:

People saying Chris ISN'T a great catch? Who called Erin a loser? LEAPS I tell ya!

See, that is the same as the crazy shit being said that women who get a free dinner on a first date is a gold-digging skank ho.

See how that works?

Go ahead and respond to whoever made that claim because I never said that.

But why even state that on the thread? Who spoke against Chris or Erin? I spoke on a man being jobless/brokeass/cheapskate as to reasons why he couldn't pay for my dinner... then Chris all the sudden feels a need to defend his position as a man... you say that folks are saying crazy stuff about Chris not being a good catch. Who said that because I am the one who started the "ladies should expect a free meal" and disgaree with your POV of expectations on a date... so one must assume you mean people like me. Why even go there?

You criticize my POV yet I am not supposed to respond to you just because I wasn't directly quoted?

Deadflow3r said:

PunkMistress said:

Doesn't he already have three of them?

And none of those chicks were awesome. They were all ugly, dirty, stupid whores.

This is where the thread starts to go wrong, very, very wrong.

People getting flippant and sarcastic and I start loosing the point.

Only desperate men willing to take whomever settles for them are asking out ugly dirty stupid whores.

What am i to believe is happening in this exchange????

Allow me to paint an ugly picture and place it in a pretty frame aka TRANSLATE

JerseyKRS: " Hey miss hot chick, I'm broke as hell and can't really afford a date but um....you wanna hang out?"

Miss Hot Chick: "um no thanks"

JerseyKRS: "Well that's alright you're not really all that hot anyway. In fact, YOUR'RE AN UGLY DIRTY STUPID WHORRRREEEEE!!!!"

Both parties went on about their business....whatever that business is supposed to be.

PunkMistress said:

JustErin said:

Face it, Erin.

You married a pathetic, undesirable loser.

Clearly.

This thread is crazytown.

Just because the other chicks wanted a guy that did not have as much life baggage as Chris the single dad does not mean that they are losers of any kind.

Why are we trying to find a bad person here?

Chris is a warm and funny man with a lot of financial issues asking out several women.

Some of those women are not interested despite his personality, they want more.

Erin is happy with Chris.

He found a taker, hurray for the two of you!!!

Deadflow3r said:

PunkMistress said:

Clearly.

This thread is crazytown.

Just because the other chicks wanted a guy that did not have as much life baggage as Chris the single dad does not mean that they are losers of any kind.

Why are we trying to find a bad person here?

Chris is a warm and funny man with a lot of financial issues asking out several women.

Some of those women are not interested despite his personality, they want more.

Erin is happy with Chris.

He found a taker, hurray for the two of you!!!

Erin knows I'm joking.

Deadflow3r said:

PunkMistress said:

Clearly.

This thread is crazytown.

Just because the other chicks wanted a guy that did not have as much life baggage as Chris the single dad does not mean that they are losers of any kind.

Why are we trying to find a bad person here?

Chris is a warm and funny man with a lot of financial issues asking out several women.

Some of those women are not interested despite his personality, they want more.

Erin is happy with Chris.

He found a taker, hurray for the two of you!!!

and IamFunkay7 will find a taker as well and won't have to worry about whether they pay for the date. Such things only matter here on the org.

HotGritz said:

Spinlight said:

But parents do split custody. I'm talking each parent gets one kid. Case closed.

But passengers in cars ARE susceptible to traffic laws. Not as a rule they aren't. You'd have to have some sort of drug charge going on or the car would be in your name with insufficient insurance/registration but a routine traffic stop? Hardly.

But malpractice CREATES the inequity and the payment from the judgment equalizes it.

But of COURSE you get paid 100% of your wage - your wage is a much smaller fraction than 50% of the income derived from YOUR OUTPUT. Irrelevant under Conscious' argument. If you agree to something then you are 50% responsible so therefore you only get half in each circumstance mentioned above.

You are smarter than this. WAY SMARTER! However the lunacy in this thread from those of you who have a problem with courtship between men and women and the mere idea of a man paying for dinner/movies or whatever the "date" entails deserves the appropriate response. In this case, crazy gets crazy.

It seems like you just throw things out there to be sassy sometimes, which is cool, but please. Inject the logic more often. That's a joke right? You're joking! I love it. I wondered if you had a sense of humor. Sometimes you sound like you actually believe what you type.

You know damn well that the situations you list are not at all equal to a 50/50 agreement to go out to dinner. You are exploring him as much as he is exploring you. Exploring? So then what's your problem? If, as part of the exploration, the man wants to pay on the first date or the woman expects that the man who is trying to "explore" her should pay on the first date or even any date be it first or last, why do you have a problem with that?

"Who's zoomin' who?" I prefer Pink Cadillac and Jump To it myself. In each song, the man had no problem playing his role.

1. There are plenty times where each parent DOES get one kid. Situations vary. Is it mandated? Um, no, because children would be considered one unit unless split apart. They are not separate instances in and of themselves unless there's other parents involved.

2. Yes, a routine traffic stop. Passengers must adhere to traffic laws. If a passenger isn't wearing his seatbelt in a Click It Or Ticket state, you will be ticketed.

3. It is not irrelevant. The terms of the agreement are that you provide them work for an alotted amount of time for an alotted amount of money in return. That is the agreement. However, since you are BOTH making the product (their facilities, your handiwork), you should both be entitled to the profits. You aren't.

4. No, see, courtship is an institution and that's why it attracts the crazies. Courtship is based on trivializing a woman, plying her with gifts, so that the man can impregnate you. Don't you get the origins of courtship? Don't you -get- why courtship is a bad thing? Courtship is just facilitating sexism, boo. Handle that.

5. It's not a joke. You are not injecting logic at all in this thread. You are using impassioned speech to justify your expectations. Expectations are opinions, not facts. Logics bear toward fact, not opinion. It is also very CLEARLY an opinionated argument because you see that not everyone in this thread agrees.

6. You're trying to throw out red herrings here to derail the argument. It's not about the man wanting to pay. It's about the woman expecting to be paid for. If a man offers to pay and a woman accepts, no harm done. If a man slaps down his half of the bill and you are startled by his expectation of equality, then I guess you just had your bubble burst. This is the real world, ma'am. Here in the real world, we don't expect someone else to clean up after us, but we may be obliged to receive their help.

7. Yeah and in the end, she still was just a woman falling out of love. So there you have it. Aretha gave us all the answer: save the drama and just find a fuck buddy.

^ In all that babbling, the truth was revealed.

You have a problem with courtship and dating etiquette because you view it as an INSTITUTION.

Now the question remains, what care you about hetero institutions? Before you get itchy, your opinions on what a man should or should not do when pursuing a woman are strange or rather its strange that you care at all. You are not dating women sooo....nothing gained and nothing loss. Why do you care what the woman expects when she's not expecting anything from YOU?

And again, if the woman is the one being pursued she can expect whatever she wants. There's this thing called free will and if a man asks a woman out on the date and by the time the check comes, she does nothing, well you've got choices. 1) you can man up and pay because the date was at your request and is part of your pursuit of HER, 2) you can hand the check to her and either expect a grimace, an argument or her to pay and never call you again, or 3) you can both wash dishes and the outcome will be the same as #2. Still feel like the "argument" has derailed?

Oh and good point about the seatbelt issue but um....I doubt cops are randomly pulling people over because the passenger is not wearing a seatbelt. Their main focus is on the driver. Your average traffic ticket has to do with expired tags, failing to yield, running a red light, and failing to signal. Ask a cop, he'll tell you.

HotGritz said:

Deadflow3r said:

Just because the other chicks wanted a guy that did not have as much life baggage as Chris the single dad does not mean that they are losers of any kind.

Why are we trying to find a bad person here?

Chris is a warm and funny man with a lot of financial issues asking out several women.

Some of those women are not interested despite his personality, they want more.

Erin is happy with Chris.

He found a taker, hurray for the two of you!!!

and IamFunkay7 will find a taker as well and won't have to worry about whether they pay for the date. Such things only matter here on the org.

Remember I am a single woman living on disability. I have a ton of good qualities IMO.

However, I don't think it would be wrong if a guy would say "pass" specifically because of my financial situation. He has that right.

Maybe he wants a woman that he can take places and she has appropriate attire to wear and he does not also have to pay for that. Who knows?

What I am against is dishonesty about ones motives for accepting the date or pursuing the person to begin with.