While generally speaking it is not this simple if a person settles for this why not? Trophy wives and sugar daddies do exist for a reason; some people pursue this type of relationship and when they meet their match they are plenty happy together. Would I prefer it? Doesn't matter.
It depends on the mutual needs of the couple I suppose, but a cat curled up beside you provides plenty of presence (and a one way conversation if need be). If a woman only wants to sit on the opposite side of the couch saying nothing day in and out, or ignore you completely, then the cat or dog is probably a much better choice. A pet is certainly cheaper.
I was told that the mans role in the relationship is to work and pay for every thing and buy her things. When I asked some of the women what they give in in the relationship they say their "companionship". They shouldn't have to pay for anything even if they make just as much money as you and that they shouldn't even do housework. So what their companionship is to them is allowing themselves to be with you I personally think that is unacceptable. If all that is all they want to give I personally would rather find a better woman.
I would agree than in many cases, it is acceptable for the guy to pay for the girl. However, the girl should be expected too do things for the guy as well. Whether that means splitting a check occasionally or helping him with something. When it comes to birthdays, valentines day, christmas and other "present giving" holidays, it would be pretty rediculous for women to expect their significant other to give them a present and then have nothing to give in return. So my conclusion is that yes, it is accpetable for guys to pay, but women need to give a lot more than simply their presence in the relationship. I'm assuming that presence also covers sexual intamacy, but if not, then I lean even more against this question.