First there is this story from The Frisky about a woman who went on a date and the guy forgot his wallet.
The check arrived and I began my elaborate routine of digging through my purse to look for my wallet while waiting for him to stop me because he’d inevitably insist on paying. That’s just the dance of the first date. But I truly wanted to pay for half, so I’d offer that and insist and we’d see where the chips fell on the floor of this wine bar, so to speak. My purse digging routine went on for a while and he said nothing to shoo me away from searching for my wallet. Rather, HE spent an inordinate amount of time digging through his jacket pockets and emptying their contents onto the bar: his apartment keys, his iPhone, his ear buds. Each item was carefully and deliberately pulled out of the pockets as though he were a prosecutor presenting his evidence to the jury. He walked me to my apartment where we hugged goodbye as he said that the next date would be “on him” and I thought, There’s not going to be another date. And sure enough there wasn’t—no worthwhile follow up from him, no suggestion of another date. And that was just fine with me.”
I’m on the fence as to whether he actually forgot his wallet or if he just likes to test women. A woman replied to my comment suggesting maybe he was telling me the truth by saying that there didn’t seem to be enough “groveling” on the guy’s part for him to be sincere. Apparently, a virtual stranger is expected to grovel and beg for forgiveness for making a mistake.
Here’s where I get suspicious. Earlier in the essay she says:
Conversation was good, but I wasn’t sure whether or not a second date was in our future, so when the check arrived I was going to see how he played it and, against the rules of my dad, I was planning to offer to pay for half. In my sophisticated and somewhat illogical hierarchy of principles, letting a guy who I’m not sure I’m interested pay for a first date is a worse offense than a guy I am interested in not offering to pay for a first date. I just never want to take advantage of anyone and that’s how I’d feel if I had let him pay for everything with no assurance that we’d see each other again. So in this instance, I was ready and willing to go Dutch.
I guess my main issue with this is how dodgy the author seems to be. If she truly believed that it was inappropriate for her to allow a man she was on the fence about to pay, then how he “played” it would be irrelevant. Her decision would have been made already. This feels like a rationalization that borders on a fib. In order to protect her virtue and prevent people from accusing her of basically doing exactly what she’s implying the man was guilty of, she’s trying to insist that she’s not like “those other women.” Not saying he’s not a dick if he did intentionally forget his wallet. But let’s not act all doe eyed like we’re above The Con, mmkay?
Second article is this one from XOJane. To recap, the woman meets a guy abroad while she’s in Europe. Ten months later they’ve decided to move in together and move across the country to LA where he has taken a job. She gives up her life here in NYC and agrees. I’m not questioning her decision. Yay for love and all that. My question is concerning what sort of security measures are put in to place to protect herself. Specifically, is her name on their lease or is it just his? As I’ve learned over these past 9 months dealing with the drama that has arisen due to my family being unable to find my Dad’s will, it’s never a good idea to leave certain things up to someone else. Especially when it comes to the roof over your head. Whether it’s a move across the country or simply moving in with someone who lives ten blocks away, is it ever as simple as taking your stuff and placing it somewhere else? What measures are in place to protect you should things go awry? How much would or should someone be willing to risk in a situation like this?