Thursday 8 March 2012

The Downside of Chivalry

Dear Anyone,

I'm happy to say that a month on things are still going nicely with Joe, and we're still learning new things and getting to know each other.  He's still very much a gentleman, still very sweet, still very chivalrous.

One thing I have learned though, is that as wonderful as chivalry is, there can be a downside to it.  Who'd a thunk it eh?  Joe is the type of guy who insists that it's his place to pay when we go out, and that's fine with me.  He says he doesn't mind at all.  The problem is he's been a little short on cash the past couple weeks, due to big bills, etc, and so because of that when I went to his place two days ago that was the first time we'd seen each other in over two weeks (his sons staying with him at the weekends has also been a contributing factor).  I've said that we can just do something like go to the cinema and it will be my treat, but he's really not keen on that, and thinks it wouldn't be fair since I'm not employed at the moment.  We were supposed to go and see a film on Monday, but we didn't because he said he had to look after his sons unexpectedly.  That may have been true, but I also feel it was a bit of sabotage on his part, since he didn't want me to pay, and I was a little annoyed, because I was looking forward to it.  There's always the option of not going out and spending loads of money, and instead just chilling at his place, but his mum arrived from Barbados yesterday and is staying with him for God knows how long, therefore that idea might be on hold for now. 

So does this mean that his insistance on being the 'man' means that spending time together will be compromised??  I really hope it won't be.  I've never been into long-distance relationships let alone with someone who lives in the same city as me!  He did say I'm still welcome to go to his even though his mum is there, just no "sleepovers" for now...  That's a good sign I guess, right?