Recently I noticed that my 25 year-old stepson was spending A LOT of time on the phone with a very nice young lady. When I inquired if she was his girlfriend, he emphatically said no…they were just friends. So I let it go, for a little while. But as the days and weeks went on I could hear him up in the wee hours of the morning talking to her, laughing and simply enjoying her. They’d hang out, video chat and basically do all the things that young people in love do when they’re dating and getting to know one another – so again I asked, “Are you sure she’s not your ‘special friend?'” He smiled ear to ear at the mere mention of her, but again insisted they were just friends. I knew there was more to it since they clearly were feeling each other, so he explained further.
“Right now, I can’t be her or anyone’s boyfriend. I don’t have anything. You need money to date so I can’t properly date her. She’s amazing, we have a lot in common, we have the same mind and we have a great time, but right now, I’m not set up to date her or anyone.”
Made sense to me. I thought it was honorable that he’d want to date a young woman “properly.” But then I got to wondering what “properly” meant. Did it mean that a man should pay for every date? Should he have the house, the car and the perfect job before he could court a woman? Was he obligated to shower her with gifts while pursuing her? How “set up” did he need to be before he could make someone his girlfriend?
It made me think back to my early to mid 20’s and the kinds of guys I was dating at the time. I don’t recall that many men who had their own place at that age, even though I had my own apartment at 23. I don’t remember going on extravagant dates, being showered with expensive gifts or dating men who had their careers set by age 25 either. But I DO remember having fun and going out with great guys who were working, albeit entry-level in many cases. I didn’t care how much money they made, and I also had no problem picking up the popcorn and soda while he paid for the movie. It just didn’t seem that deep to me back then; and while I’ve never been materialistic, I don’t think I had that high of a financial expectation of the men I dated in my 20’s. We were all starting out, and I didn’t feel the need to deny myself the company of an attractive, intelligent, funny man just because he wasn’t a self-made millionaire by the time he was 26 years old.
Now, don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying money isn’t important, nor am I saying that women should pay for all dates or not care what a man can bring to the table. By the time you reach your 30’s and have “real bills” like a mortgage, are saving for retirement or have children to care for, money becomes more of a necessity. Dating a man who can provide is probably at the top of your list of requirements once you hit your 30’s, and there is nothing wrong with that if that’s your preference.
But I also had goals of my own, and I never planned to have a man take care of me – even if I got married. While some women aspire to be “kept,” others have no problem being the bread-winner. So why is it that some of us still have this idea that men should always make more money than we do, or if he doesn’t, should still be expected to pay for everything even if a woman is capable of doing it? Is it our pride? Traditional way of thinking? Society’s influence? If he’s broke but she isn’t, should he be excluded from her dating pool? Even if he’s not “broke” per se but makes a modest salary, should a woman overlook an otherwise good man even if she doesn’t need him to take care of her or pay for her popcorn at the movies?
Most likely, if a woman makes a lot less than a man he will still date her. If she’s attractive, intelligent, funny and sexy, a man will ask her out – even if she lives at home with her parents and works part-time at the Gap. But if a man still lives at home – even in his early 20’s a couple years out of college – a woman might not even look his way. He could be the next Steve Jobs working out of his parents’ garage for all we know, but still some might view him as undateable. Is that fair? A double standard? Can we get past the idea that a man should always pay even if we can pay for ourselves?
I told my stepson that he’s doing the right thing by focusing on his career rather than settling down too soon. At 25 I wasn’t thinking about marriage or kids or any of that – just having fun – so he’s on the right track. At least he’s honest about what he wants; and his ambition is strong and his future is bright. Maybe they can continue building a friendship until he makes it big by the time he’s 30. And if they’re both lucky, money won’t matter then either.
