Who Should Pay For A Date

This is a topic that seems to spark a bit of debate each time it arises. Naturally, no one likes to be used. Men claim women use men for money and women claim men use women for sex. And there's truth to both of those claims. But there's also a good old fashioned way of alleviating any hard feelings of being used.

How, you ask?

The feeling of being used can be eliminated by fulfilling one another's needs in respectful ways. Let's face it, women like sex just as much as men. But guys, nothing makes a woman feel crappier and more insecure about herself than a man ringing her phone at some inopportune moment, inviting himself over to simply plunk himself down on her sofa - and then expecting sex from his less than stellar efforts.

And ladies, nothing makes a man feel more used than a woman accepting a date that the man drops 100 or more on and in the end he doesn't even receive so much as a thank you or a goodnight kiss from his efforts to impress and the woman displays no intention of ever seeing the man again.

SO HOW CAN ILL FEELINGS OF BEING USED BE ELIMINATED?

Let's explore a couple of starters.

THE FIRST OF WHICH IS: Ladies, if you have no intention of ever seeing the man again, pick up the tab or at the very least, offer to pay your half. A true gentleman won't permit you to do this and, if that's the case, might I ask that you please reconsider your assumptions of him and give him a second chance?

THE SECOND OF WHICH IS: Men, if you want sex, please consider the use of romance to obtain it. I realize that new concepts such as "no strings attached" exist in the dating world, however, please realize that you can only make a woman feel crappy about herself and used once or twice effectively and get away with it. Any more than that and her insecurities will cause her to rethink the "arrangement" she has with you and she'll shut you off - and out.

No one wants to spend time with someone that makes them feel crappy about themselves.

THIS CAN ALL BE AVOIDED WITH A VERY SIMPLE EQUATION: ROMANCE = SEX

Yep, it's that simple. If a woman feels romanced (respected) by a man and is made to feel special in some way via actions (not a bunch of BS words), she can be talked into some wild things. Not only that, she'll tend to go along with those things a lot longer than she would if a man weren't lifting a finger for her.

And men, we all know you want sex. Is it really that much to ask for you to take a woman out to dinner or offer a movie or drinks or bring her a flower - before you attempt to pounce?

What I'm trying to say here is:

GUYS: If you want your needs fulfilled with sex then fulfill a woman's needs with romance (respect).

LADIES: Refuse to fulfill a man's needs with sex unless your needs are fulfilled with romance (respect).

It's a mating dance. It's the recipe for successful mating and it's an age-old equation. Romance = Sex.

GENTLEMEN AND TRADITION

Listen up guys. Have you ever seen James Bond let a woman provide for him? Nope. And why is that? It's because James Bond types of men, true gentlemen, true "macs," understand that women want and need romance and they understand that their masculinity is closely associated with their ability to provide. They understand that the way to successfully mate with a woman - is to be chivalrous, provide for her and romance her.

You'd never see Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin letting a woman pick up the tab or provide for them either. They, too, understood the old equation "Romance = Sex." They were respectful gentlemen and each considered themselves to be a "man's man." And a man's man does not fall short when it comes to being a man by letting a woman provide for him or take a masculine, leading role.

These men, true gentlemen, realize the value of romance and they understand the implications of masculine versus feminine energy. If Frank Sinatra asked you out to dinner and you, as a woman, attempted to pick up the tab - he would've been insulted. You would've insulted his masculinity, his manhood, and implied to him that you felt he wasn't, or couldn't, be a good provider.

It would've been construed as a direct blow to his manhood and his masculinity.

There's a big difference between gentlemen and immature "man boys." Even modern day manufacturers and large corporations realize this and embrace good old fashioned values and tradition in this modern day world.

Take, for instance, the Ketel One Vodka marketing campaign. Ketel One Vodka is raising their "value" in consumers' eyes by marketing their vodka strictly to - yep, you guessed it - gentlemen only. And they make reference to "gentlemen" in every single one of their commercials.

They speak directly to "gentlemen" only in their marketing campaigns and they portray gentlemen as chivalrous and respectful with women in those campaigns. Notice that even though they portray men as men, gentlemen and manly men - they DO NOT portray them as disrespectful cavemen to women. In fact, they portray them as the exact opposite. They portray gentlemen as chivalrous to women - respectful. And this in no way decreases their value as men or portrays them as weak. In fact, it increases their value as men, real men, gentlemen - and portrays them as strong, respectful and chivalrous to women: