Do Japanese guys pay for meals/outings for female friends?

[Tyrien]

Originally Posted by MMM

So what does a woman do to make herself appear as a valuable mate?

Society has evolved to the point where anyone can easily live independently.

[JasonTakeshi]

Originally Posted by Tyrien

Society has evolved to the point where anyone can easily live independently.

Yet you depend on society to live.

[Columbine]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

Bias? Being as the original question was about how it`s done in Japan, I would think that they might want to hear from people who have dated (and seriously, not just looking for someone to hop into bed with) in Japan.

I didn't mean bias in a negative way, and yes, I wasn't taking the OP's original question into account when I said that. I was thinking more in a general spectrum and got a bit stuck on the east/west divide. My thought process was "Is there a generation gap here on the 'should men pay?' question? Yes, but our older group who seem to support it, all mostly live in Japan, so maybe it's not their ~age~ that sways their opinion, but their greater exposure to a culture where it IS generally the man who pays."

Originally Posted by Nyororin

That`s true in a way, but I still think the asker should be the one who pays when it comes to a date. It isn`t about the money, it`s about being considerate and respecting the other person. Unfounded expectations are never a good thing, no matter what they are about. The expectation that the other person (who you`ve asked out on a date) will be able to afford the date is really not respecting them in my eyes. If they can and do end up paying - that is one thing... But you should never ask someone out when you cannot afford it.

Now here I agree with you wholeheartedly. It would be foolish of Party A to invite Party B out to a restaurant, say, that A cannot afford and then attempts to lump B with part of the bill. Even more so if B can't afford it either. It also is unfair if there's a big discrepancy between financial situations. But this is kind of a starting dating situation, where perhaps you don't know each other well. I guess my main beef was with the idea that women should -never- pay for the date.

Originally Posted by Nyororin

There is nothing wrong with going out and splitting the bill - however, to me that says that I have not been "taken on a date" or "taken out to dinner" - just that we had dinner together. There is a difference in terms of what it means for a relationship.

I guess this is where we differ then; I see dating, on the whole, as a mutual activity. Being "taken out to dinner" is a one-sided activity, where of course I wouldn't expect to pay. But that's more like a special occasion, not a regular date. I might -get taken- on a date for an anniversary, birthday, first date or if he's especially screwed up somehow. But generally speaking, we just -go out- on a date.

Originally Posted by Nyororin

I`m sure there is some level of generation gap involved, but I see it more as whether you are looking for a real long term relationship or not. If you`re just casually dating, like the youngest set on most likely is, then you`re going to think differently than someone who is actually looking for a potential life partner. I mean, I`m not THAT old - the next "generation" down from me is most certainly not looking for a partner if they`re even old enough to date. :P

*laughs* didn't mean to insinuate anything. 'generation' is probably too wide, but there's definitely differences between the mindset of my peers (20-25) and people I know who are now in their 35's. That's not a big age gap really, but the surroundings we had growing up were fairly different. They have their schema for dating as we have ours as teenagers to come will have theirs, as gender roles continue to be shuffled about. A kind of decennial gender shift?

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by Columbine

Now here I agree with you wholeheartedly. It would be foolish of Party A to invite Party B out to a restaurant, say, that A cannot afford and then attempts to lump B with part of the bill. Even more so if B can't afford it either. It also is unfair if there's a big discrepancy between financial situations. But this is kind of a starting dating situation, where perhaps you don't know each other well. I guess my main beef was with the idea that women should -never- pay for the date.

I don`t think that anyone has said that a woman should never pay for a date. I just don`t think that a man who asks a woman out, and then expects her to pay her way should be expecting the relationship to turn into anything more.
And this all does apply to the early dates - once in a relationship the rules are up to the two of you.

I guess this is where we differ then; I see dating, on the whole, as a mutual activity. Being "taken out to dinner" is a one-sided activity, where of course I wouldn't expect to pay. But that's more like a special occasion, not a regular date. I might -get taken- on a date for an anniversary, birthday, first date or if he's especially screwed up somehow. But generally speaking, we just -go out- on a date.

But you`re talking about a steady relationship, right? There is a difference, and I pointed it out in the earlier post. "When you both know each other`s financial situations really well and it isn`t an issue really as it is already a serious relationship then it no longer matters. The same with once you`re married - it no longer matters. "

It is in those first dates that it counts, while the relationship is still figuring itself out. When you ask someone out on a date and are hoping that it will go further, if you then expect them to pay it becomes pretty iffy. Once you`re past that stage it doesn`t matter.

A kind of decennial gender shift?

Hey, I`m still in my 20s here, so even the 10 year explanation would be a bit iffy for explaining a generation gap.

To illustrate what I`m trying to say, imagine that you are not in a relationship and a guy you have met a few times but don`t know very well at all (Maybe know his name, but not anything else) asks you out on a date. He seems attracted to you, and you think that things have the potential to advance.
Once you finish dinner he checks the bill and pulls out half the cash and asks you to pay the rest. He never said he was going to pay, but he did ask you out and didn`t mention splitting the bill. What message would this send to you? It wouldn`t send a good one to me.

[Columbine]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

I don`t think that anyone has said that a woman should never pay for a date. I just don`t think that a man who asks a woman out, and then expects her to pay her way should be expecting the relationship to turn into anything more.
And this all does apply to the early dates - once in a relationship the rules are up to the two of you.

Not as so many words, no, but a few of the earlier comments (not yours) were treading the line and rather implying that it was wrong/insulting and unfeminine somehow for a woman to pay on a date. And some of the ways in which the woman was supposed to contribute back in lea of actual money were frankly rather crass to my mind.

Originally Posted by Nyororin

It is in those first dates that it counts, while the relationship is still figuring itself out. When you ask someone out on a date and are hoping that it will go further, if you then expect them to pay it becomes pretty iffy. Once you`re past that stage it doesn`t matter.

Yes, I can see your point. Maybe it's just me though, but I'd still take cash with me. Even if he paid the bulk, I might still offer say, post-dinner drinks on me. And to a certain extent, as I mentioned before, it can be a good litmus for personality, and a gentle brake on proceedings if I feel that things are getting out of hand and there's a growing implication of obligation. I would be less put off a second date by a guy i was 50/50 over who let me pay a part of the date and depart gracefully than a guy i was 50/50 over who splashed the cash and blatantly expected compensation to be paid later on. Again, maybe just me, but I hate feeling forced into another date just because of "Oh jesus, I shouldn't really say 'no' because he paid so much last time." and to be honest, the more expensive things get the earlier in the relationship, the more awkward and lousy and off-putting the date usually is in my experience. *Victorian Hat* Sir, you are trying too hard.

Originally Posted by Nyororin

Hey, I`m still in my 20s here, so even the 10 year explanation would be a bit iffy for explaining a generation gap.

To illustrate what I`m trying to say, imagine that you are not in a relationship and a guy you have met a few times but don`t know very well at all (Maybe know his name, but not anything else) asks you out on a date. He seems attracted to you, and you think that things have the potential to advance.
Once you finish dinner he checks the bill and pulls out half the cash and asks you to pay the rest. He never said he was going to pay, but he did ask you out and didn`t mention splitting the bill. What message would this send to you? It wouldn`t send a good one to me.

Whoops! My bad. You're just so sensible on here compared to all the pocky-snorting kiddies, Nyoro-san. it makes you seem that much older. :P Must be cultural then. Maybe my upbringing was more feminist than I give it credit for (not always a good thing).
Anyway, yes. That kind of scenario would be bleeding stupid on his part. But that wasn't really what I was against to start out with. I refer back to my top paragraph.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Tyrien

Society has evolved to the point where anyone can easily live independently.

Do you really think that is true? Then why do the majority of people get married?

[JasonTakeshi]

Originally Posted by MMM

Do you really think that is true? Then why do the majority of people get married?

Religion / Culture / Love / Financial (...)

[MMM]

Originally Posted by JasonTakeshi

Religion / Culture / Love / Financial (...)

So society has not evolved to the point where anyone can live independently, then.

[Tyrien]

Originally Posted by JasonTakeshi

Yet you depend on society to live.

That's over reaching, isn't it?

Fine though, I'll make this super clear in hope that my words won't be taken incorrectly.

Any functional* adult living in a capitalist** society does not require marriage to provide financial independence within their lives.

Women do not require men to provide for them financially***; likewise men do not require women to prepare their meals or clean their homes.****.



*Of course I must exempt those with disabilities who are not able to care for themselves. Even then I only state this to avoid nitpicking. It is an irrelevant point when speaking of marriage in the context I originally quoted.

**For the purpose of this discussion we have only been speaking of capitalist societies that embrace marriage.

*** For all intents and purposes men and women are socially and economically equal in the modern capitalist society we are referencing in this topic. Though it is arguable on average women make less than men, it is a negligible difference when speaking of financial independence.

**** With strives in technological convenience it's entirely possible and not overtaxing to feed one's self and maintain a living environment.

This is counter to the original text I quoted from MMM. In that post MMM was inferring that men attempt to find a female mate by asserting a financially dominant role, and women try and find mates by showing they can cook and clean. (paraphrasing). This is incorrect (at least not dominant) in modern day and age.

Marriage and/or dating is far more of an emotional desire now than the financial desire it was then. While it's true those were the dominant desirable traits within a monogamous heterosexual relationship, they are not now. Those traits became desirable out of a need to procreate, or expand society.

Today when one looks for a partner the desired traits are subjective from person to person. While paying for the meal is a nice gesture, it is not a deal breaker for most people, I would even argue very few. Alternately the ability to cook or clean has become an trait that few are concerned about in today's day and age.

----

Now here's the problem with discussing topics that stem off a question of how people behave, or what the social standard is. We all see so many TV shows, movies, animes, video games, and read so many books, comics, mangas, novels, and stories that we delude ourselves into thinking we know for certain how people always behave, or what they want.

MMM's cultural experience has led him to believe a women's top concern when looking for a man is the ability to provide financial stability, and a man's top concern when looking for a women is the ability to cook and/or clean for him.

My cultural experience on the other hand has led me to believe otherwise, as stated above.

We can't claim a finite answer here, or even try and ballpark something as the most common. "answer" because we'll never know******. If we did then we wouldn't have discussions about what the "standard" is. We wouldn't have such issues dating or finding a mate.

***** I do not believe neuroscience will advance far enough to be able to provide a concrete answer to the question within any of our lifetimes, therefore; for the sake of this discussion I will say never.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Tyrien

Fine though, I'll make this super clear in hope that my words won't be taken incorrectly.

And then you make the first post I have ever seen with footnotes.

Originally Posted by Tyrien

Any functional* adult living in a capitalist** society does not require marriage to provide financial independence within their lives.

Women do not require men to provide for them financially***; likewise men do not require women to prepare their meals or clean their homes.****.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Tyrien

*Of course I must exempt those with disabilities who are not able to care for themselves. Even then I only state this to avoid nitpicking. It is an irrelevant point when speaking of marriage in the context I originally quoted.

**For the purpose of this discussion we have only been speaking of capitalist societies that embrace marriage.

*** For all intents and purposes men and women are socially and economically equal in the modern capitalist society we are referencing in this topic. Though it is arguable on average women make less than men, it is a negligible difference when speaking of financial independence.

**** With strives in technological convenience it's entirely possible and not overtaxing to feed one's self and maintain a living environment.

Originally Posted by Tyrien

This is counter to the original text I quoted from MMM. In that post MMM was inferring that men attempt to find a female mate by asserting a financially dominant role, and women try and find mates by showing they can cook and clean. (paraphrasing). This is incorrect (at least not dominant) in modern day and age.

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.

Originally Posted by Tyrien

Marriage and/or dating is far more of an emotional desire now than the financial desire it was then. While it's true those were the dominant desirable traits within a monogamous heterosexual relationship, they are not now. Those traits became desirable out of a need to procreate, or expand society.

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?

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

Originally Posted by Tyrien

Today when one looks for a partner the desired traits are subjective from person to person. While paying for the meal is a nice gesture, it is not a deal breaker for most people, I would even argue very few. Alternately the ability to cook or clean has become an trait that few are concerned about in today's day and age.

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?

Originally Posted by Tyrien

MMM's cultural experience has led him to believe a women's top concern when looking for a man is the ability to provide financial stability, and a man's top concern when looking for a women is the ability to cook and/or clean for him.

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.

Originally Posted by Tyrien

My cultural experience on the other hand has led me to believe otherwise, as stated above.

We can't claim a finite answer here, or even try and ballpark something as the most common. "answer" because we'll never know******. If we did then we wouldn't have discussions about what the "standard" is. We wouldn't have such issues dating or finding a mate.

***** I do not believe neuroscience will advance far enough to be able to provide a concrete answer to the question within any of our lifetimes, therefore; for the sake of this discussion I will say never.

I think the answer is just depends what you look for. I know several people that said they would never get married and never have children when they were younger and now are happily married with children today.

When you do get to the point that you are ready to get married you will do the things you think you should to make yourself attractive to your mate, just as you wear clean clothes and makeup, perfume, cologne, etc. when you are meeting someone you are interested in having a relationship with. That is not cultural or generational. It is biological.