Here goes a bit of a rant about some posts justifying why it's OK to let a man pay for your dinner.

Listen, if somebody invites me on a meal I don't assume that I owe them anything in return aside from the basic human decency I exhibit in the other areas of life. And if I weren't a decent human being they probably wouldn't invite me in the first place. An invitation is offering to spend time with a person you like on your cost. You express that kind of sympathy by adding value to that person's life i.e. in form of a meal or other gifts. Because if you like a person you usually want to see and make them happy. This is a process that comes naturally.

So yeah, if someone ask you out one a date you can expect them to cover for you. As adult human beings they made that decision themselves, respect that choice and take their word for it. Don't get me wrong, you should have enough money with you to cover for yourself in case of emergency (you keep this to yourself). But if you are unsure if someone is willing to treat an invitation like one you best clarify it before you accept. Do you really want to awkwardly suffer for hours through the date, feel like you are walking on eggshells, before the waiter brings the ominous bill to your table? - One of the tenets of FDS that determines if you go on a second date with him?

You can't convince me that this is a joyful experience for you. Dating is supposed to be fun.

Don't forget that you always are vetting each other, it's never a one-way street. If you are sitting there in front of your perceived HVM, nervously fidgeting around, you aren't making the best impression either: What you are signalling is that you are feeling uncomfortable in his presence yet still decide to stick around. Sis, this is horseshit. If you are feeling that way without making any changes to improve your state you failed yourself. Shame on you, you ignored your own boundaries. It's your responsibility to stick up for yourself. If not knowing who is going to pay the whole evening ruins the fun for you you have to make sure you won't get there in the first place.

Further men are not that dumb. You don't want to come off as insecure. Not because you are actually insecure and don't want to let your weakness shine through. You don't want to come off as insecure because you are actually secure and assertive to your own needs. You don't larp as a HVW, you ARE a HVW. And a HVW has firm boundaries and sticks up for herself.
NVM and LVM will also take advantage of insecurity.

​

I always get a bit annoyed from posts that say "He has to pay for our dinner because I (have to) do X (in return)". Like:

- "It's dangerous for me as a woman to go on a date with a stranger so he pays." If you don't feel comfortable it's your responsibility to leave ASAP or don't agree on the date to begin with.

- "I spend so much time and money to look fabulous, the least he can do is pay." or...

- "My outfit/nails/hair/make-up/waxing/perfume costs more than the dinner itself so he pays for me." Complaining about sexism/the pink tax while using performative femininity as justification for a men's share on a date doesn't add up. You are not some barbie doll. It's absolutely fine to express yourself that way. But it is your decision to do so on a date. If he doesn't meet your physical standards of attractiveness ask yourself if you are willing to let him compensate for it with his money. Ask yourself if you are willing to make this compromise. Personally I want somebody in my own league while still letting him pay.

- "I have to bear the risks of sex, pregnancy and childbirth due to my biology so he pays the bills." Sex and money shouldn't be put into relation. Not with porn, prostitution or reproductive rights. Period.

- "(Potential) motherhood and child rearing puts me out of the workforce, it therefore costs me money so he pays." What are you, a surrogate and nanny? Last time I checked FDS is against surrogacy. If he/you hire(s) a nanny this shouldn't come of the expanse of a date or other bills. You'd be making a bad deal anyway. If your arrangement is that you watch the kids while he invites you out on dates then I recommend you to actually look into what salary you'd get as a nanny, tax included.

- "I have to endure severe period cramps every month, the least he could do is pay for dinner." This is tragic but it's not your date's fault how much you are suffering from your menstruation. Stop with the martyr mindset. Your implication that it's OK to endure pain when money is involved is very unhealthy. There is a huge variety of actions a man can do to ease your pain. Guilt tripping him to pay for dinner isn't one of them.

​

Only to name a few. I have to say that I understand your frustration. It's not easy to uphold basic standards in nowadays dating culture. It's annoying to get attacked for wanting and accepting nice things. Yet the argumentation many of you use is flawed.

See, dating shouldn't be a tit-for-tat. You already know that 50/50 is nonsense. The reasoning behind 50/50 is basically that the woman can buy herself free from male entitlement to her body, tricking her into a false sense of security and autonomy. If you say that refusing 50/50 is OK because you give him something otherwise - ranging from eyecandy over compromising your security (what the actual fuck?) to "nature is a misogynist" - you are getting right there where you came from: Selling your body as a woman to a man to justify his affection for you. Since you are offering him this deal would you really be happy with a man that accepts it for the very reasons you quoted?

Do you think that a man who pays for dates because you visited a professional stylist to get your hair done is genuinely a HVM? He either sees your value or he isn't that into you. Stop with the excuse making. Misogynists on reddit will always try find a reason to shame women into lowering their standards and giving charity pussy. By even arguing against their negging you put yourself in the wrong.

I want a man to pay for me. It makes me feel valued. I tried various models of 50/50 but it never truly worked for even one relationship. It always felt like friendship or companionship for BOTH OF US. There is no emancipation in going 50/50. In contrast the relationships where I let the man pay for me while I contributed to my own income myself made both of us happy. It felt romantic, like an actual relationship. And mind you, most of them were lefties/liberals not conservatives. I don't want a man to pay out of guilt. I don't want him to "make up for his manhood" or excuse the absence of physical effort with money. It's just how I work and the men I'm compatible with are more than happy to meet this standard of mine. Those men who met me there were the only ones I was able to see - and I am sorry to say this - as actual men. Not large, lazy man-children, cute softbois without any plans for their lifes or repulsive, overcompensating machos. I would never demand that they do. If they don't offer it out of their own free will I instantly know that we won't work.

I'm over here, watching you defending your standard to letting a man pay and I'm wondering: Don't they know that a HVM wouldn't even debate them on that? If he wanted to he would. A HVM actively wants to! It's not a "he should" but more a "I allow him to". It gives a man the chance to present himself. This is an important thing for a HVM himself.

Sincerly,

RustInPiece from the FreeDinnerStrategy 😜