However way we put it, the girl in the end gains in this type of relationship.
I'm currently in some coffee shop here down south. Trying to get some reading done. Apparently, couples abound this coffee shop to get some "us" time and be all public about their relationship. Anyway, it's just funny to me, how the girl just chooses what she wants from the menu and makes the guy pay for whatever that is.
There was this one incident when a girl storms this same exact coffee shop. Orders. Points to the guy to pay for what she ordered. Amazing. To think that the guy was really cute.
It's just plain unfair, or at least just damn, "girl-centered". This kind of role assignment is not that apparent in homosexual relationships. It shifts from time to time. In one occasion, it could be person A paying, then on the next, it's person B. Nothing is set in stone, unlike in heterosexual relationship wherein the "who pays role" is set and going against it would result in unwarranted consequences like:
a.) The girl thinking the guy doesn't value her that much.
b.) There is no future to this at all.
c.) This guy is just in it for the "other benefits". (i.e. sex, glory of having a pretty girl in arm, etc.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not really against the idea. If I were playing the "girl" role, I'd be pretty much game about it. Then again, i would feel too guilty about the situation that I would think that I'm taking advantage of the other person, so I would rather not.
To cap things, I'd prefer going dutch about everything just like how quasi-contracts are.
"A quasi-contract is that juridical relation resulting from certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts by virtue of which the parties become bound to each other to the end that no one will be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another." (Art. 2142, Civil Code)

