because she doesn't have to. She doesn't need the money and without that average isn't good enough to bother. I guess there is no way to say what is reasonable or unreasonable in a specific case without knowing the case.

Not all women exchange sex for money. Plenty of women sleep with guys with no money, believe me. I mean, there are guys in prison who can get dates.

certainly better in the sense that they are less likely to cheat on her with another woman

Sick of the Stupidity, thank you for eliciting it!

Ok, so, Anon, what you're talking about is a couple of things. First, there is the imbalance of power at the earliest stage of a relationship-- when two people don't know each other or barely know each other. I have said it before, and I'll say it again here: I agree with you that at this very earliest stage, attractive women have it easier than the men who ask them out. I think this is because men are typically the pursuers and women are typically the pursued, and thus at this early stage we are doing the choosing. But, remember, that this scenario was created by men-- it is a purely cultural construct that women don't ask men out more often than they do, so if you're unhappy with it, don't be mad at us. However, what you are failing to realize is that this is a temporary thing-- once the relationship has developed, it is an open question who has more power. This varies from one relationship to the next, and I don't think it falls so neatly along gender lines. If, as you've suggested, marriage benefits women but not men, then as the relationship progresses men actually have more power than women, because women want to get married and men don't paticularly.

Second, there is the fact that some (or many? I don't know) women expect men to buy them stuff. Now, frankly, this bugs me too. For me, the feminist movement is about equality, and it drives me nuts that some women are happy to take all of the benefits of the greater equality it has given us but are also perfectly happy to have some double standards remain in place. This is hypocritical. For me this means: a man is not expected to pay on dates. When I go out the bill is always split, or we alternate paying (if I know I'm going to see the guy again). I insist on this. Gift-giving is a two way street. And it extends to other double standards that bug me: I don't particularly care for the idea that a man should hold open a door for a woman, or help her out of the car-- because these things are vestiges of a time when women were treated as delicate creatures who needed to be taken care of, and we're not! I can open a door! I think general politeness should dictate that whoever is in the position to open the door should do so, and hold it for whomever else they happen to be with, regardless of gender.

So, yeah, I get what you're saying on this point, but here's the thing: unfortunately for you men, if you want this to change you're going to have to take some action yourselves. I don't like double standards and I don't allow myself to live by them, but I don't know if there are that many women who 1)have taken the time to think about why a man paying is sexist and not in our best interests and 2)are willing to actively change that dynamic. Seriously, in some cases I have had to have long conversations with men about why it is important to me that paying should be an equal thing, why I believe it's a feminist issue, etc. This can sometimes put a damper on the first date atmosphere. (or, the guy can respect and admire you for it, and those are the guys who are keepers). Just as women pushed back when they felt like they had had enough of being treated unfairly-- and did it at the risk on incuring wrath from men, so men have to do the same.

You said: "man says to woman: I will have sex with you if you spend a lot of money entertaining me and buy me a bunch of stuff.

chance she will hop to it and entertain him and buy him a bunch of stuff. Not too good. Woman says to man I might sleep with you if you entertain me and buy men stuff."

While I agree with some of the underlying points I think you're getting at, notice how you've framed this: it's all about sex. This implies to me that, for you, relationships with women are all about sex (and not much more). For most people, relationships are about a lot more than that.

If a man came up to me and said that, my response would be "What makes you think I want to sleep with you?" and "I'm not a john-- I'm not going to pay for sex. I'll get it from someone who likes me for who I am and wants to sleep with me, not a cash machine."

Now, I would also never go up to a man and say what you have the woman saying, nor is that the implicit message of how I date (see previous post, re: splitting checks, etc.). For me, and I think a lot of people, it is more like: "Maybe we will sleep with each other if I get to know the real you, the real you is someone I admire and enjoy, and you get to know me and I am someone you admire and enjoy, and there is a certain level of physical attraction between us that makes each want to sleep with the other after we've gotten to know whether we like each other as human beings."

This has absolutely nothing to do with money or power or expecting to hear only my point of view from men, or any of the stuff you've said. You're thinking of dating as a business transaction (dinner for sex or entertainment for sex or whatever), and that's not what it should be!