In the first part of this post, I addressed the notion of a man paying to maintain his “boss chick”. I used a metaphor of car ownership, and I think I’ll continue with that line of thinking. It’ s not pretty. It’s objectifying. But that’s what paying into the looks of a woman who you’re not permanently committed to is. On to part 2…
What relationship-seeking woman in her right mind would expect a man to pay for her physical upkeep?
Now, to start with, I’m going to dispel a couple of reactionary notions that I know I’m going to get to this post:
- I am not saying that it isn’t nice of a man to pay for his lady’s perm, purse, or panties every so often. It’s a treat, and a gift.
- I’m not saying without exception that a man can’t say, “Baby, whenever you want your hair done, I’ll take care of that”.
What I’m addressing is women who decide to be high-maintenance and then decide that other people should pay for that lifestyle decision in order to be with them. You made the choice to be that way; why should anyone else have to pay for it? I will use a bit of an example from my own life: I choose to wear wigs. They’re fast and less maintenance for me in my busy life as a student. People love the way I look in them. My partner loves my sometimes springy, sometimes straight, sometimes black, sometimes copper colored hair. But just because he likes the way that I’ve done my hair and he’s choosing to date me, does that mean that he has to pay to keep me that way?
No. It does not. I am my own woman and have made the decision for myself. It is not fair to demand someone else to pay for my lifestyle and make it a prerequisite to indulging in my company.
Let’s go back to the car rental/lease/ownership analogy. You have a car that you own, and you decide that you’re going to let someone take it for a spin every so often. The person who you allow to borrow the car pays for basic wear, tear, and maintenance, and they compensate you for the time and energy consumed during usage. If they break something, they pay for it. Fair is fair.
Now, if you decide that you are going to get rims and spinners on your car, as well as custom hot pink seats, should the person who has no ownership in your car have to pay for those upgrades?
No. You might decide to up your rental fees a bit, but you don’t demand that someone who doesn’t have full-ownership in your car pays for your upgrades, because that essentially means that they become someone who has a stake of ownership in your goods. They are allowed to dictate what you can and cannot do with your car from that point on.
Even if you had all that stuff in your car to BEGIN with, should that person have to pay for the upkeep? No. You demand more compensation for the time that they spend with it and the wear and tear put on it, but you don’t demand that someone else pays for maintaining your ultra-lustre paint job. Use what you save in acceptance of fees for time used to take care of your vehicle’s upkeep.
Ladies, we’re spinning this back to the real world now. The metaphor’s been fun, but I’m pretty sure you get the point. When you demand that someone else pays for the upkeep you yourself have elected into – someone with no definite commitment to you – it results in a number of things. For starters, there’s the element of ownership that we just went over. Until a man puts a ring on your finger, he has no goddamn place telling you what you can and cannot do with your life. Period.
He is not committed to you, and as a result, neither of you should be putting unrealistic expectations on the relationship. He can’t tell you how to do your hair or what clothes to wear. He can tell you what he prefers, but he shouldn’t be ordering you around. When he starts paying for your hair, nails, clothes, etc., then he now has a stake of interest; he can tell you what he does and does not want you to do with his money. To be honest, I don’t think any woman should put herself into a position where someone with whom she has no formal agreement dictates her life. It’s just the beginning of an uneven and potentially unhealthy relationship.
Secondly, if you are this kind of person, it has the potential to turn you into a user who is centered on me, me, me. You are so concerned with your partner taking care of what you perceive are your needs in an unequal fashion (because I am fairly sure that the women who have this mentality are not going to be paying for their man’s Gucci watches and cologne). Eventually, this uneven handling of the relationship can and likely will seep into other areas of your life – including the emotional and the sexual.
You can see where this is leading. Do you really want to end up there? If you are a woman seeking a serious relationship, this mentality is highly counterproductive before you reach the stage of marriage, where the serious notion of life compromises come in.
Conclusion
Just as there are different classes of cars available for rental, there are different classes of women available to date. If you think that you’re a Bentley tier, boss chick, then great! Go ahead with your fine self. Rock out the furs and pricey weave jobs and booty implants/injections. But don’t expect that just because you make the decision to lend out your time to a man, he has to pay for your upkeep. You can demand that he takes you to better places, or that he’s a higher caliber of person to match your desires. Demand more for your time, but don’t demand that he pay into your stock directly.
Doing so reduces your relationship to one based less on emotions and partnership to one based on what a man can do to further your aspirations of vanity. As a grown person, it’s no one’s responsibility to pay for your lifestyle except yours. The true aspect of being a boss chick is the boss part – you run your own show and don’t expect anyone else to do you and make you except you.
Pingback: Paying for a “Boss Chick”: Reasons Why It’s a Bad Idea for Both Parties « Tearyne Was Ambitious