Is it normal that i find dating illogical?

your problem may be that you're dating the wrong people if they think "men always pay"

"naturally earned relationships"

Could you please elaborate on this for me?

The inequality part is shitty, but there's something to be said for meeting somebody with the intention of dating them and then doing so. In my experience, when romantic relationships develop out of friendships, I've sometimes found that they were relationships I don't actually want to be in. I was there because I hadn't wanted to hurt my friend, or because our friendship had skewed my view of the our (very questionable), or because my friend manipulated me into the relationship, or because the friend was ~nice~ and I therefore felt obligated to reward that niceness, instead of doing what was right for me. A date, on the other hand, comes with the expectation that both parties are evaluating their compatibility. If I'd gone on an actual first date with my first high school boyfriend, for example, I think I would've been more likely to realise that he was pushy, abusive, and kind of racist. When relationships form "naturally", I'm less conscious of what's going on and whether or not it's healthy.

Also, do you have any sources to back up your claim that "most relationships from dating don't work out, and …most naturally earned relationships do"? Because I don't think that's true. I think most of both types of relationships fail, because quite a large majority of relationships fail in general. Most people don't end up spending the rest of their lives with the first person they have a romantic relationship with, and that holds true whether they went on a formal date or were friends beforehand. There are plenty of people who ONLY let relationships form ~naturally~. If most "naturally earned" relationships worked out, most of those people would still be with their very first significant other, but that's usually not the case.

I say I agree.

First, allow me to attack your remarks.
- What do you mean by 'naturally-earned relationships', is the referent suggesting relationships spawned from the immediate and unintentional narrative of the person, meaning a relationship where things 'just developed' so to speak? Or just one formed independent of a confluence of social pressures? I'm not sure that is what you meant, but I anticipate it being close enough that judgments rendered are still applicable.
- What do you mean by 'forced trial and error', do you refer to relationships based in superficiality as my first paragraph posits? If you're meaning is why do people think it is necessary to be dating someone either by outside social forces or whatever, then I suppose it is true, but that makes the assumption being 'forced', self- or otherwise, is inherently bad or detrimental to finding a successful relationship. Trial and error is how one determines what and what not one deems necessary in a significant other, dreaming and listing traits of that ideal girl has the lopsidedness of being disconnected from the reality of those ideals and thus you cannot really determine what matters and what does not, trust me, I've done that, came up with fifty-two separate criteria for my mate and then remained steadfast for a while, and if you don't believe that I'll gladly e-mail that. If you feel compelled by those aforesaid social forces and that is your sole reason, then the stress and psychological strain created by the hullabaloo is probably not that great and you should just quit until you yourself change.
- Why do you make the sweeping generalization that women, most, think iike 'Oh, he's a male, that means he must pay.' Think about it another way, women have to take a long and thorough shower, dry their hair and body, style their hair, get dressed, apply lotso' makeup, adorn themselves, and in general prettify themselves so they look the pinnacle of their appearance to impress, and that all takes hours and hours of time, whereas a man takes a hour, or way way less, and the reasoning amounts to something like 'The least the man can do is pay for dinner.' Of course that's illogical and applies to plethora types and numbers of girls, but here's another reason. It is social norm, not implying you have to adhere, but that's just how the clockwork of relationships tickety-tock about. I suppose an interpretation of the act is that is shows a man can provide for a woman, but, of course there are alternatives, the acquiesce of a woman to a patriarchal regime. Most of this is BS though, women simply think its nice. Sure its gynocentric and things ought be equal and its irrational, assuming the equality framework, but, well, we, men, just gotta live with it.
- The semantics of this are terrible and forming opinions within such vague parameters complicates things, but, one bright thing, your first sentence is pretty lucid. If people want meaningful and fulfilling relationships, then considering the whole of a person, beyond looks and money and shit and into their ideas and skills, is scientifically proven the best mode of search. But, of course, how do you find these people? Dating.

Second, let me speak on general terms.
- Anything can be illogical given whatever system logic, or truth, is being derived. For example we can have a liberal humanist and a nihilistic social evolutionist sitting together debating from opposite sides of their unbridgeable chasm that trying to save a fellow that tried to tip a soda machine is good or bad. It's all systems; so is it illogical, maybe, maybe not, your question making an assumption of worldview that I cannot reply to with any real certainty. But, that's just on the philosophical side of sh*t. You're probably arguing for authenticity and seeking romantic and companion-based relationships as opposed to superficial ones spawned from or for appearances and sex, and do these systems of action realize the teleology of their situations? Perhaps, once again, depends on the person. If the person just wants sex and to show off their mates, then they have realized their goal, albeit a probably misguided or nonconsensual thereby the lack thereof information none-the-less their goal. If the person wants one based on authenticity and romance and companionship, cornerstones of conventional love really, then I suppose not. Dating is not illogical per se, but assuming the teleology of authenticity and romance and companionship all being truthful characterization of this theoretical marriage-situation, your manifestation of dating is one inefficient and often failing in this respect. So dating in general, no. Dating by your definition, yes, science probably backs this in one way or another.

What kind of dates do you go on? Dates are fun! Why would you call a relationship that's skipped the dating stage a 'natural formation'?

Dates are meant for two things: getting to know someone, and having fun. The latter being the most important. If it feels like an interview to you, then something's not right.

Sworn off relationships until I want a family. I think it's too much hassle for men, and if they don't engage in things their partner likes to do, while she doesn't do it to him, he is a bad boyfriend. Why anyone would want to put themselve sin that position is beyond me.

When I went on a date, we both paid.

I think you need to be less black and white about what "not working out" really means.

If you go on one date with someone you don't know especially well yet and it doesn't lead to another date - or maybe it leads to one or two more and then nothing - nobody's going to be heart-broken at the end. But if you spend months on a complex courtship, "naturally earning" the relationship, I think you'd be a lot more hurt if it was all for naught. Dating is a good way of "testing the water" without the risk of getting hurt later.

I think you'd be very hard pressed to prove that the majority of relationships that didn't come from dating "work out" (depending on what your definition of a relationship "working out" is, anyway).

I have been on a few the-guy-pays, the-guy-picks-me-up, the-guy-kisses-me-first date and since i'm a girl i find it cool hahaha.

I've dated a lot, but I've never actually been on a traditional date like the one you described above.

Just because some people do it that way doesn't mean you have to do it that way too. :)

A better date would mean doing a fun activity that is of interest to both parties that occurs somewhere public; for example, a picnic at the park, walking your dogs together, or attending a sporting event. Dinner is very formal, so it's not always the best place to start.

Ah the wonders of equality, well equality in all things except for dating.