Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: paying for meals
Message-ID: <5330@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Mar-85 13:34:28 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5330
Posted: Sun Mar 24 13:34:28 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Mar-85 13:34:28 EST
References: <1204@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 79

Okay, Karl Malik's article gets here now. I find it very interesting in
that he is definitely trying to maximise very different things than I
would over the course of an evening.

	Laura Creighton recently mentioned that because she made more
	money than (most? some?) of her dates, she tended to pick up the tab.

So far, so good. (It is ``some'' rather than ``most'').

	I guess I would caution against either men or women taking
	on the role of 'provider'. In the case of a woman paying for the
	meal, it makes some sense as a socio-political gesture; setting an
	example which breaks the traditional sex roles.

I am not particularily interested in making socio-political gestures.
The rules are 1. tanstaafl, 2. if I don't pay we don't eat out, 3.
I want to eat out, 4. I go out. I don't think that this is going to
get me labelled as ``the provider'' and I am sure that if I ever get
that label, then, if I don't want it, I can unget it fairly fast.

	But, changing the world is one thing, and having a good
	relationship is another. Paying for meals (consistantly) is a way
	of obtaining power over another person.

Really? I would assume that only a very insecure person would consider
my wanting to go out for dinner as a way of obtaining power over anyone.
In that case, I would already have the power (by virtue of their being
insecure) and there wouldn't be much I could do about it. 

	It can also have the undesired effect of causing the other
	person to think twice about inviting you out. "Gee, I'd really like
	to have dinner with such-and-such, but they always want to pick up
	the tab and this must be getting expensive for them."

I don't fight people over the tab. If you want to invite me out, and
want to pick up the tab, I'll let you. But there is something worse
with this statement than all that. The assumption is that I must be
resenting the expense of the dinners, or in some way not wanting to
spend so much money. The trick is, if I feel that way, I will let the
other person know right out. I would assume, in the absense of comments
to the contrary, that whoever was paying didn't mind paying. Why would
anybody assume that I would be ``suffering in silence''? (right. I know.
*Nobody* would assume that I would be ``suffering in silence''...)

	Of course, there are ways around this, but the point is that
	it sets up an imbalance that you have to go out of your way to deal
	with. ("Am I using this other person?" "Am I treating too much? How
	does this make them feel?" "I could ask them but would they tell me
	the truth? They might not want to hurt my feelings." etc.)

Bletch! Bletch! Bletch! You are seriously trying to go out with someone
whom you think doesn't have the nerve to tell you that they think there
is something wrong with the dinner arrangements? Is this for real? Why
go out with someone whom you thnk would lie to you like that at all?
Incidentally, ``I don't want to hurt your feelings'' is the number one
euphamism for ``I don't want the hassle of dealing with this''. 

	My experience has been that the simpler (i.e., more equal)
	the relationship, the happier both people are.

What is ``equal''? If I pay for fewer dinners and have megabucks in the
bank, is this supposed to be equal? Am I not supposed to go out with
people who are poorer than I then? 

I think that this is ``dinner as a power trip'' and ``dinner as a way to
avoid communicating''. Maybe I don't go on these sorts of dinners. I
would end up resenting the sort of relationship where somebody paid for
*everything* over the course of a long period of time, but as far as a
few dozen dinners go -- what's the hassle? 

What I also find bothersome is that if Karl *doesn't* ask someone out
(for fear of having power over them) then he will be eating either
out & alone or in, neither of which is what he really wanted to do in
the first place. I can't see why this is not allowing somebody else
to have power over you?

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura