[Tyrien]

Originally Posted by MMM

Women may not require men to provide for them financially, but traditionally a family is not just a husband and wife but children as well. Sacrifices have to be made, so chances are someone will reduce or quit their job in order to take care of the children. The majority of the time that is the mother.

Not today.

There's a plethora of stay at home dads, but in most cases both parents are working to support their children and the home required to support their children.

Originally Posted by MMM

Serious dating (where one is looking for a life partner / spouse traditionally involve the presentations of one can bring to the marriage contract.

People often date with the aim of a long term relationship. Today we rarely date for the conscious aim of marriage. Somewhere down the line thoughts of whether or not one may want to marry the other do occur.

Honestly, I would consider anyone who consciously makes the thoughts akin to "gee, would I want to marry them" within the first few months of dating delusional, and maybe even crazy. Especially in the context of the first few dates.

Originally Posted by MMM

That is not what I said and not what I inferred. Never did I express any indication of "dominance" in my post.

A man needs to sell himself to a potential life partner, just as a woman needs to, in turn sell herself. They must present themselves as worthy mates.

One of the ways men do this is by showing they have the ability to give his potential spouse financial independence. A woman will, traditionally, in turn show that she can take care of her husband and family while the husband is at work making money. These are the traditions I spoke of. That has nothing to do with dominance, but has to do with taking the roles to make a family work. This is more than traditional and cultural, but is biological. We see this in the animal world.

You did infer it. You inferred it when suggesting tradition is how to go about dating/taking women out to dinner.

Traditionally speaking a man play the dominant role, and (though I tried to avoid saying it earlier) a woman plays the submissive role.

Originally Posted by MMM

Why would you think relationships were less "emotional" "then" then they are "now"?

Young people not looking for life-mates are "casually dating" and may be looking for emotional satisfaction. Another way of saying they are filling a hole in their lives, no?

and you're moving away from where I clarified financial independence :/

Originally Posted by MMM

The desire to procreate is not cultural or generational. It is biological.

It's very cultural and/or genrational, nor did I say the desire, but need.

Originally Posted by MMM

You may be fine with casually dating someone who can't pay for a meal. However, are you going to want to marry that person?

Paying for a meal is the least of my concerns when dating someone.

As I mentioned it's incredibly easy and within the realm of reason that most people living in a modern capitalist society are able to achieve financial independence (yes I Count paycheck to paycheck independence). With that being the case it's not a matter of "can't", but whether or not the other is willing to.

Personally I believe it's fine for one or the other to offer to pay. I do believe it's fair that the bill is split though, or just separate at first. The date isn't about the food or who pays for it, it's about communication. After a while of dating there may or may not be a mutual understanding about how the bill works, but that is subjective to the personalities of the couple.

Again, when I date I'm not even thinking about marriage, or spending my life with the person. I'm thinking whether or not she likes me, but more importantly if I like her enough to have dinner with her again.

If marriage is supposed to be an institution bounded together by love, then you cannot just decide like that. You fall for someone over time.

Originally Posted by MMM

I am curious as to what you think my "cultural experience" is. I have lived most of my life in the Pacific NW, but have lived a few years in Japan.

Specifics do not matter.

What I am saying is I am fully aware that you're from a different generation than I am, possibly two generations (sorry, never payed enough attention or care to find your exact age, I just know you're fairly older than I) . You've grown up in a different world than I, therefore; you're emphasis on what's traditional.