# Who should pay on dates?



## lovelygirl

I friend of mine, 35 y.o. is single and hasn't been in a realtionship for 3 years now. During one of our discussions, she said "I don't need just a guy in my life... I need a man. But where are men today? To even think that they can't even pay you a dinner? _A real man wouldn't allow me to pay for the dinner, even if I insisted on doing so..._". 

This got me thinking if men here agree with this saying or not. 

Do you think you should pay most of the time or you dislike it when you're the one paying most of/all the time? 
Would you prefer she paid most of the time? 
or you think both partners should take turns? 
Is there any difference if you're at the early stages of dating/relationship ? 

I will say my opinion later.


----------



## stixx

A real man wouldn't date a woman who assumed he'd pay for dinner.


----------



## Andy1001

lovelygirl said:


> I friend of mine, 35 y.o. is single and hasn't been in a realtionship for 3 years now. During one of our discussions, she said "I don't need just a guy in my life... I need a man. But where are men today? To even think that they can't even pay you a dinner? _A real man wouldn't allow me to pay for the dinner, even if I insisted on doing so..._".
> 
> This got me thinking if men here agree with this saying or not.
> 
> Do you think you should pay most of the time or you dislike it when you're the one paying most of/all the time?
> Would you prefer she paid most of the time?
> or you think both partners should take turns?
> Is there any difference if you're at the early stages of dating/relationship ?
> 
> I will say my opinion later.


I think that if a guy asks a woman out then he should pay, at least on the first date.If it becomes a regular thing then maybe take turns but of course that depends on the financial situation of both parties.I would be kind of old fashioned in that I found it very embarrassing if my date tried to pay for dinner,when I was dating that is.


----------



## Mr. Nail

After only 30 years of marriage I will let her pay sometimes.


----------



## EunuchMonk

I would pay (and there are many asides as to why) BUT I can understand why some men don't want to. They say the equality movement should make all those old ideas of chivalry go out the window (which are kinda sexist, if you really think about it). Because feminist have all these ways to undercut men's role in relationships. It's like they want to give a man the responsibilities of manhood but not the privileges.

They may say, "Oh, a man should pay, Be a man."
Man, "Who is the head of the relationship?"
Her, "There is no head, you chauvinist. We are both our own heads."
Man, "Well, as equals, we will split the bill 50/50."
*drops his half and walks off*

Since back then men were the only ones working and making money it made sense for them to be the ones paying. Now with women finding success just as often -- if not more often -- as men, they should have no problem chipping in on the cheque. And not have this entitled attitude to a man's money.

Couple that with the fact that many date for fun, to get a good time and a free meal and it makes you wary of being used.

What @Andy1001 says makes sense too. If you asked her out then it would makes sense that you would pay.


----------



## Satya

My personal rule always was... the person who asks for the date, pays for dinner/drinks.
I payed plenty of times for a man's meal and drinks. Sometimes, he'd try to insist on paying, and if he really wanted to, I wouldn't argue with him.

Many times I offered to pay for half, if he asked me out, but I thought the meal/drinks were on the expensive side.

I have known many women who felt that the man should *always *pay, I just can't fathom that concept myself.


----------



## jld

I would not trust a man who did not expect to pay.

I hope my daughter would not, either.


----------



## Satya

@jld, I'm curious... what is it about a man not paying that brings about mistrust? Can you be more specific?


----------



## Andy1001

I think this is a situation that people,well, men in particular tend to overthink.Instead of enjoying the company of their date for the evening they are thinking about who's going to pay.I always,from my first date ever(Hello Molly) assumed I would be paying and if my date insisted on paying I would let her unless it was expensive and I would at least pay half.


----------



## arbitrator

jld said:


> I would not trust a man who did not expect to pay.
> 
> I hope my daughter would not, either.


*But do you ever feel obliged to ever pay for a dinner date, even if you are the one who does the asking; or, as a female, do you feel that you are you always entitled to free meals and drinks as dictated by some rather old-timey societal norms?

The prior would definitely sound as the most equitable to me! *


----------



## jld

Satya said:


> @jld, I'm curious... what is it about a man not paying that brings about mistrust? Can you be more specific?


I think a man's paying shows maturity and respect for his date. He is taking responsibility for her comfort, perhaps in a small way, but significant to me. It is the sign of a gentleman.

I understand some may find this sexist. I think it reveals a lot about his character.

Honestly, I would see anything else, regardless of who did the asking, as a red flag.

And I certainly hope my sons will know this instinctively.


----------



## jld

arbitrator said:


> *But do you ever feel obliged to ever pay for a dinner date, even if you are the one who does the asking; or, as a female, do you feel that you are you always entitled to free meals and drinks as dictated by some rather old-timey societal norms?
> 
> The prior would definitely sound as the most equitable to me! *


Three decades ago I asked a young man out. I am embarrassed to admit that, btw. Blushing as I write this. Ashamed of myself. How forward.

He would not let me pay. 

I am 24 years past dating days. But if Dug died and I were single again . . . Yes, I would expect a man interested in me to do the inviting and pay for the evening. And I would not accept an invitation if I did not have sincere feelings for him in return. That is simple respect.

Just old-fashioned here, I guess.


----------



## jld

arbitrator said:


> *But do you ever feel obliged to ever pay for a dinner date, even if you are the one who does the asking; or, as a female, do you feel that you are you always entitled to free meals and drinks as dictated by some rather old-timey societal norms?
> 
> The prior would definitely sound as the most equitable to me! *


Just thinking some more about this, arb . . . If I enjoyed the time I spent with him, the next date would be my inviting him to my place for a home-cooked meal. Dating does not have to be expensive.


----------



## arbitrator

jld said:


> Just thinking some more about this, arb . . . If I enjoyed the time I spent with him, the next date would be my inviting him to my place for a home-cooked meal. Dating does not have to be expensive.


*And I love to whip up those homecooked meals as well! And if she cooks, the absolute least that I can do is to wash the dishes and clean up!*


----------



## Marc878

Never took anyone on a date where they had to pay or go Dutch. IMO anything less is bull****.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

This would be the perfect sequence with me. Regardless of who asked, I would pay for a first date. Would politely insist on paying for the first date. 

That said - some type of reciprocity in later dates, would be very welcome. But generally, I wouldn't be looking for financial reciprocity, just some type of reciprocity.





jld said:


> Just thinking some more about this, arb . . . If I enjoyed the time I spent with him, the next date would be my inviting him to my place for a home-cooked meal. Dating does not have to be expensive.


----------



## arbitrator

*Regarding the fine art of dinner dating, Ol' Arb is a "male chauvinist" from all the way back whenever Tyrannosaurus Rex's freely roamed the earth with resounding authority!

It's just ingrained in my inner being to pay for both the dinner tab and the movie tickets, more especially if I have done the "inviting!"

Now if she absolutely puts her foot down and says that this is on her, then just who in the hell am I to remotely argue with that logic?

Trust me! It's overwhelmingly appreciated and I'll make it up to her in many other appreciative ways!*


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> JLD,
> 
> This would be the perfect sequence with me. Regardless of who asked, I would pay for a first date. Would politely insist on paying for the first date.
> 
> That said - some type of reciprocity in later dates, would be very welcome. But generally, I wouldn't be looking for financial reciprocity, just some type of reciprocity.


I agree, MEM. Both people want to feel respected and appreciated.

I bought a book back in the early 90s called _What Smart Women Know._ It's still on my bookshelf. 

The authors, one male and one female, and both feminists, I believe, said that the man should at least offer to pay for the first date. 

When even feminist *men* are advising that, I think it is only wise to listen.


----------



## GusPolinski

https://youtu.be/71o3hq6iSPM


----------



## jld

arbitrator said:


> *Ol' Arb is a "male chauvinist" regarding dinner dating from way back when Tyranasaurus Rex's freely walked the earth with resounding authority!
> 
> It's just ingrained in my being to pay for the dinner tab and the movie tickets, more especially if I do the inviting!
> 
> Now if she absolutely puts her foot down and says that this is on her, then just who in the hell am I to remotely argue with that logic?
> 
> Trust me! It's overwhelmingly appreciated and I'll make it up to her in other appreciative ways!*


I am just amazed you are still single, arb. You are such a charmer!


----------



## Duguesclin

GusPolinski said:


> https://youtu.be/71o3hq6iSPM


I watched the video. I did not agree with it. Why should she pay?

If you invite a friend, I would agree you should share the bill. But this is not called dating.

Even if she invites you, the gentlemanly way is to offer to pay. If she wants to pay because she did the inviting, I would insist at a minimum to pay for my half.

Maybe I am old fashioned. I do not want to give women too much power :wink2:.


----------



## Eagle3

I am all for women wanting to not feel slighted that they are equal. But I'm old school I pay in the early going and after if she insists than have her do what she wants. 

I feel the world is progressing and that's a good thing. But I like the old school process early on a man treating a woman.


----------



## arbitrator

jld said:


> I am just amazed you are still single, arb. You are such a charmer!


*Thanks, @jld ~ but its largely my own fault! After being twice-divorced from heartless, cheating wives, "mutual trust" just doesn't come my way all that easy anymore!

I know that it's largely nothing more than "stinkin' thinkin'," but a lot of times I've told myself that even if I married someone as virtuous as say, Mother Teresa, she probably would end up cheating on me because there's probably something within my mental makeup that would make them cheat exactly like the other two!

But hope does spring eternal!*


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

I figure whoever picks the venue or chooses the activity or does the inviting should be the one to pay the bill. Ideally, they would take turns, and be likely to choose dates in keeping with their financial situation. If one person is controlling and dictates everything the couple does, then that person is going to end up paying more often!


----------



## jld

arbitrator said:


> *Thanks, @jld ~ but its largely my own fault! After being twice-divorced from heartless, cheating wives, "mutual trust" just doesn't come my way all that easy anymore!
> 
> I know that it's largely nothing more than "stinkin' thinkin'," but a lot of times I've told myself that even if I married someone as virtuous as say, Mother Teresa, she probably end up cheating on me because there's probably something within my makeup that would make them cheat like the other two!
> 
> But hope does spring eternal!*


Oh, I don't think there is anything wrong with your makeup, arb. And I absolutely have hope that a lady as good and kind as Mother Teresa will someday be by your side. 

Actually, have you looked in your church for any interesting ladies? I bet many Methodist gals would consider you a fine catch.


----------



## arbitrator

Duguesclin said:


> I watched the video. I did not agree with it. Why should she pay?
> 
> If you invite a friend, I would agree you should share the bill. But this is not called dating.
> 
> Even if she invites you, the gentlemanly way is to offer to pay. If she wants to pay because she did the inviting, I would insist at a minimum to pay for my half.
> 
> Maybe I am old fashioned. I do not want to give women too much power :wink2:.


*I know that I ended up literally paying through the nose (not exactly my choice) in two different Texas District Courts whenever I divorced both my cheating XW and my RSXW! That's kind of like expensive dates!

And let's just say that both of those lying, cheating skanks came out smelling like roses!*


----------



## arbitrator

jld said:


> Oh, I don't think there is anything wrong with your makeup, arb. And I absolutely have hope that a lady as good and kind as Mother Teresa will someday be by your side.
> 
> Actually, have you looked in your church for any interesting ladies? I bet many Methodist gals would consider you a fine catch.


*Oh, hell no! One church member/choir lady who was interested in ~ sweet on me, happened to jump my a$$ one Sunday morning because I had walked over and congratulated another woman lay leader on a mission project! I had only been on one prior date with this woman! I had never been out with the lay leader!

Let's just say that I "shut her water off" in no uncertain terms! At my fragile age, I absolutely don't need crap like that!*


----------



## jld

arbitrator said:


> *Oh, hell no! One lady who was interested in me happened to jump my a$$ because I congratulated another woman lay leader on a mission project! I had only been on one prior date with her!
> 
> Let's just say that I "shut her water off" in no uncertain terms! At my fragile age, I absolutely don't need crap like that!*


Lol, arb. I hope something works out soon!


----------



## WorkingOnMe

If she insists on paying for her (not your) meal, wouldn't you assume that the date didn't go that well? That she wasn't that into you? I wouldn't expect a second date if that happened to me (wouldn't ask for one either). Back when I was dating, I never even considered that there would be dates I didn't pay for. I guess times change.


----------



## jld

WorkingOnMe said:


> *If she insists on paying for her (not your) meal, wouldn't you assume that the date didn't go that well?* That she wasn't that into you? I wouldn't expect a second date if that happened to me (wouldn't ask for one either). Back when I was dating, I never even considered that there would be dates I didn't pay for. I guess times change.


I think it could mean she does not yet trust you. So she does not want to feel obligated to you in any way.

If you are patient, and work on earning her trust, that apprehension could evaporate.


----------



## ConanHub

lovelygirl said:


> I friend of mine, 35 y.o. is single and hasn't been in a realtionship for 3 years now. During one of our discussions, she said "I don't need just a guy in my life... I need a man. But where are men today? To even think that they can't even pay you a dinner? _A real man wouldn't allow me to pay for the dinner, even if I insisted on doing so..._".
> 
> This got me thinking if men here agree with this saying or not.
> 
> Do you think you should pay most of the time or you dislike it when you're the one paying most of/all the time?
> Would you prefer she paid most of the time?
> or you think both partners should take turns?
> Is there any difference if you're at the early stages of dating/relationship ?
> 
> I will say my opinion later.


I don't think there are hard and fast rules about this.

I am old school enough to appreciate what your friend is talking about and am definitely "that" man who will fund whatever date I ask a lady out for.

That being said, I think if a woman wants to ask a man to do something with her where she is choosing the events for the date, she should probably be ready to fund it.

Maybe whoever is asking and planning the date should pay until you are into a relationship far enough to plan it together.

I will say that a man who can't pay for dinner from his mid twenties on is probably not a good choice of mate unless there are special circumstances.


----------



## ConanHub

P.S. I did ask Mrs. Conan out for our first date and of course I paid.

She was very appreciative and still is over 25 years later.😉


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> I think it could mean she does not yet trust you. So she does not want to feel obligated to you in any way.
> 
> If you are patient, and work on earning her trust, that apprehension could evaporate.


When I asked my first date to the movies a long time ago my Dad asked me had I enough money to pay for both of us.I said I had and then he told me to always pay if I was taking someone out because girls have to buy stuff that boys don't and if I got a reputation for being mean I would never get any dates.I think that is still good advice.


----------



## Marc878

arbitrator said:


> *Oh, hell no! One church member/choir lady who was interested in ~ sweet on me, happened to jump my a$$ one Sunday morning because I had walked over and congratulated another woman lay leader on a mission project! I had only been on one prior date with this woman! I had never been out with the lay leader!
> 
> Let's just say that I "shut her water off" in no uncertain terms! At my fragile age, I absolutely don't need crap like that!*


i don't think people understand how hard it is being a chic magnet.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> When I asked my first date to the movies a long time ago my Dad asked me had I enough money to pay for both of us.I said I had and then* he told me to always pay if I was taking someone out because girls have to buy stuff that boys don't *and if I got a reputation for being mean I would never get any dates.I think that is still good advice.


Very good point from your dad, Andy. I am impressed by his sensitivity.

That is the kind of man who can be trusted.


----------



## arbitrator

Marc878 said:


> i don't think people understand how hard it is being a chic magnet.


*I only wish, Mark, my man!

In the infamous words of the late, great Rodney Dangerfield, "I always seem to be able to attract the women who can do me the least possible bit of good!"

That's why I'm just literally scared "crapless" of ever hooking up again, no matter how vivaciously-beautiful, humble and heartly, and intelligent that they might present themselves to be! They all seem to have an agenda, with a clip-on "ball and chain" that they can affix to your sorry a$$ in one stroke, and a cheat-o-meter in their other hand that they can use for their very own edification! *


----------



## Daisy12

On a first date I would offer to pay for half of the dinner, but would be turned off if he accepted on the first date. If the relationship continued than I would be more than happy to pay for half off our dates and depending on whether he made more money than me I would not take no for an answer half the time or be the one to set up the date and pay for it before hand. 

I know some men might feel bad letting a woman pay at anytime but I would feel like I was taking advantage of him if he always paid, especially since I make a decent wage.


----------



## stixx

I dated a girl once for about 2 weeks. We went out a handful of times and she never once offered to pay. This is a sensitive area for me - I'm overly concerned about being taken advantage of- and so I said "when do you think it's appropriate for the woman to offer to pay?". She said "I'm an old fashioned girl, I expect the man to always pay".

She was a cutie and we had chemistry but after she said that I knew I'd never ask her out again. 

Lots of posts about who pays on the first date. 

There should never be dinner on the first date unless you've already met in real life and you know there's good potential.

First "meetups" especially with the ever so common internet "blind" date should be scheduled as something fast and cheap, a coffee or maybe a drink in a local pub, because the odds are there won't be a second date, why spend time and money on a person with whom there is a small possibility that things will click and you'll see them again?


----------



## 225985

Satya said:


> @jld, I'm curious... what is it about a man not paying that brings about mistrust? Can you be more specific?


Because IHO women are weak and need to be taken care of by men. Nothing wrong with that. It was the prevailing thought for basically the last 3000 years.


----------



## Wolf1974

I always did cheap inexpensive non dinner dates after a few times being take advantage of. I never liked the concept of let's split things down the middle. Would rather work it out like I'll pay for dinner and you get the movie afterward or whatever. A woman who worked but expected to have all dating paid for would be a complete turn off for me.


----------



## jld

blueinbr said:


> Because IHO women are weak and need to be taken care of by men. Nothing wrong with that. It was the prevailing thought for basically the last 3000 years.


No reason to speak (falsehoods) for me, blue. I already replied to Satya.

I am not the only person who thinks a man should at least offer to pay. The seemingly feminist male author of the book I mentioned said the same thing.


----------



## jld

_"There are two things a woman should never touch on a date: The door, and the cheque."_

https://jamesmsama.com/2016/04/23/heres-why-men-should-still-pay-for-dates/


----------



## Bananapeel

I'm in the dating world now and have always been relatively traditional in my thinking. I like to be in charge of the dating process so I am the one to ask the woman out and I am the one to pay. If she occasionally offers to take me out, I'd graciously accept it, but I consider that the exception and not the rule. I've found that most women are quite receptive to this style, and even those that consider themselves to be feminists like a man to take the lead, plan the date, and cover the expense. A big part of dating is building attraction, so following a traditional male role makes it easy to do since each side knows what to expect.


----------



## Grapes

But everyone is Equal..

: popcorn:


----------



## AussieRN

If I asked a woman out for dinner or whatever for a date I would be expecting that I would pay. She is gracing me with her company so IMHO its the least I can do.

I think going Dutch is something for more established relationships like when you're living together.

jld in the quote above sums it up best.

Quite happy to be called old fashioned....


----------



## uhtred

I think its fine for either to quietly pick up the tab. If the other offers to split, then that offer should be graciously accepted. If the other doesn't offer, then that should be considered fine as well. 

I would never take someone on a date to a place where I wasn't completely happy to pay the full bill.


----------



## FeministInPink

My guy (we call him real Estate, or RE for short) made it very clear from the very first date that he was paying. And that he would always pay. He also opens doors for me, and other chivalrous things 

As a very independent gal, this kind of freaked me out initially, because I was used to paying my own way... but then I realized, this is really nice. He WANTS to spoil me. He WANTS to spend his money on me. He WANTS to make me feel special and valued. I'd never had anyone do that for me before, and it was really refreshing. I do occasionally pay for things, like every once in a while I will pick up dinner and bring it to his place... or I get a Blue Apron box, but then I cook it and share it with him. Or if I want to go to something (a concert or event), and I invite him, I'm the one purchasing the tickets. It will never be 50/50 in terms of how much money we spend, he will always be spending more $$$ on me.

We have this joke, and we'll intentionally do this in front of other people because it's funny... the check will come, and he'll say something like, "Aren't you going to get that?" or something along those lines, and I'll respond, "No, that's not how this works." But the joke for us is there's a second part to my answer that goes unsaid. The full answer is, "No, that's not how this works. I have a *****, which means I don't have to pay." 

This dynamic works for us, even though it took a while for me to become comfortable with it. Initially, it felt to me like RE might be trying to buy my affection (I am, after all, a decade younger than he is), and it took me some time to understand that wasn't the case, that my interpretation was MY hang-up and not necessarily a reflection of his intentions (my mother taught me that if anyone ever did anything nice for you, it was because they wanted something--in her mind, no one was every simply of generous nature). And initially, I also felt guilty of taking advantage of such generosity... but again, I realized that it was MY hang-up (again, thanks Mom). And I made him promise that he should tell me if he ever thought I was taking advantage.

Before my relationship with RE, I would have said that who pays should be 50/50... but now I'm changing my tune. And if I ever find myself in another relationship, I'll have similar expectations. Because it's not actually about the money.


----------



## FeministInPink

GusPolinski said:


> https://youtu.be/71o3hq6iSPM


He needs to wear a clean shirt when doing a presentation. That's just sloppy.


----------



## lovelygirl

If there's one thing I personally dislike VERY MUCH, is splitting the bill on dates. It's cheap and insensitive. I'd rather pay it all up myself than split the bill.

To answer my own question, I'd prefer the guy to pay as I'm a bit old fashion BUT I always make sure to OFFER to pay even-though he ends up paying and I always THANK HIM. I never ever forget to thank him and show my appreciation.

There were many times that I've offered to pay and I've done so with much pleasure, especially when I've been the one to invite. But I'd appreciate it more if he offered to pay most of the time. Obviously, when I'm the one inviting, I'd except to pay for both of us but to be honest I'm more turned on when a guy doesn't let me put my hands in my wallet. haha...

As I said, I'm not one who takes advantage of being paid on dates and I always make sure to offer to pay and there are many times I INSIST on paying (and I really mean it) but I appreciate chivalric codes on men and it's something that turns me on IMMEDIATELY.


----------



## BetrayedDad

lovelygirl said:


> Who should pay on dates?


The person who ASKS the other person to go somewhere. 

Usually it's the man since they are the pursuers but if the woman happens to ask a guy to go out, she pays.

And for record, I personally see nothing chivalrous or gentlemanly in paying every single time no matter what.

It's doormat behavior imo.


----------



## Satya

I'm old fashioned in a lot of ways (I like to think) but holding doors and paying for meals are not two of them I guess, @jld.  

That being said, Odo rarely "lets" me pay for anything. Usually it's because he accidentally left his wallet at home. We don't fight over who pays, but do like to yuk it up in front of the waiters/waitresses so they think we're having a dumb argument.


----------



## uhtred

I think it can be complex. I would offer to pay, but would accept my date's offer to split without argument.

The problem is that to some people, paying is a sign of independence and they might feel slighted by not being allowed to pay their share. There are also still some men who think that if they pay for the dinner, they are "owed" sexual favors in return. I would never want to give that impression. 




lovelygirl said:


> If there's one thing I personally dislike VERY MUCH, is splitting the bill on dates. It's cheap and insensitive. I'd rather pay it all up myself than split the bill.
> 
> To answer my own question, I'd prefer the guy to pay as I'm a bit old fashion BUT I always make sure to OFFER to pay even-though he ends up paying and I always THANK HIM. I never ever forget to thank him and show my appreciation.
> 
> There were many times that I've offered to pay and I've done so with much pleasure, especially when I've been the one to invite. But I'd appreciate it more if he offered to pay most of the time. Obviously, when I'm the one inviting, I'd except to pay for both of us but to be honest I'm more turned on when a guy doesn't let me put my hands in my wallet. haha...
> 
> As I said, I'm not one who takes advantage of being paid on dates and I always make sure to offer to pay and there are many times I INSIST on paying (and I really mean it) but I appreciate chivalric codes on men and it's something that turns me on IMMEDIATELY.


----------



## MEM2020

Stixx,
I do believe it's ok to ask this type question, if however I was asking, it would be a bit more open ended. 

For example: What is it you normally like to do (excluding sex), to show a guy that you like him?

Because the difficulty in this transition period, is that 'some' men and women try to select the 'subset' of 'new' rules that favor them, without considering what seems 'fair'. 

--------
Let me put this another way. I expect to pay for dates - full stop. 

I DO like it when partners offer to pay - because I sometimes say - sure you get the tip. But the reason I do so, isn't to shave 20 points off the cost of dinner. The reason is I want to see how they tip. If the service was at least decent: Below 15% is an immediate deal breaker. It means they exploit situations where the rules are based on protocol - not law. 

If the service was great - and they leave only 15% - I would top it up to 20/22 percent with a smile. That is a nice little exercise as well. Because a solid citizen won't take offense at that. 








stixx said:


> I dated a girl once for about 2 weeks. We went out a handful of times and she never once offered to pay. This is a sensitive area for me - I'm overly concerned about being taken advantage of- and so I said "when do you think it's appropriate for the woman to offer to pay?". She said "I'm an old fashioned girl, I expect the man to always pay".
> 
> She was a cutie and we had chemistry but after she said that I knew I'd never ask her out again.
> 
> Lots of posts about who pays on the first date.
> 
> There should never be dinner on the first date unless you've already met in real life and you know there's good potential.
> 
> First "meetups" especially with the ever so common internet "blind" date should be scheduled as something fast and cheap, a coffee or maybe a drink in a local pub, because the odds are there won't be a second date, why spend time and money on a person with whom there is a small possibility that things will click and you'll see them again?


----------



## jld

Satya said:


> I'm old fashioned in a lot of ways (I like to think) but holding doors and paying for meals are not two of them I guess, @jld.
> 
> That being said, Odo rarely "lets" me pay for anything. Usually it's because he accidentally left his wallet at home. We don't fight over who pays, but do like to yuk it up in front of the waiters/waitresses so they think we're having a dumb argument.


 It might be interesting to have a thread talking about what it means to each person to be old fashioned.

It sounds like you are very happy in your relationship, Satya. All the best.


----------



## EllisRedding

Hmmmm ... I would say on one hand, and maybe I am old fashioned, I do believe in the guy paying on the first date. Since my W and I started dating I have paid a majority of the times we went out to eat. However, when we were in college, if we relied solely on me having money to go out to eat we would rarely go out lol, so since she was working she would pay more. Keep in mind as well, for a majority of our marriage (with the exception of the first few years) I have done much better financially (and now with my W as a SAHM I am of course paying regardless of who's wallet the money comes from lol), so I say about 98.7% of all meals in our lifetime I have paid.

I will add though a couple of things. Now keep in mind, I do believe on the whole "gentleman" approach, whether it be paying for meals, opening doors, etc... but also consider I have not been on the dating scene since 1997 lol. Given how far women have come with their careers/salaries where it is not uncommon for them to equal or exceed their SO in earning power, I find it pathetic that women in these positions would expect to always eat for free. Likewise, it is mind numbing to draw a correlation between a guy paying for every meal and how "trustworthy" he is.


----------



## Bananapeel

BetrayedDad said:


> And for record, I personally see nothing chivalrous or gentlemanly in paying every single time no matter what.
> 
> It's doormat behavior imo.


It can be, depending on the reason. If the guy is paying because he's afraid of upsetting the woman then you are right. If he's paying because that's what he likes to do, then it isn't. Basically, is the behavior being done for her or for him would define which category he fits in. 



uhtred said:


> There are also still some men who think that if they pay for the dinner, they are "owed" sexual favors in return. I would never want to give that impression.


Wait, so dating is like getting a hooker? Kidding. I sincerely hope there aren't too many guys like that around.


----------



## Andy1001

When I was old enough and had enough money to invite a girl to dinner,of course the ultimate aim was to get her into bed,no point denying this.But if during the evening she made it clear this would not be happening I still paid for dinner and drinks and always paid for a taxi home for her if she needed one.I can't count the amount of times my date would ask me to come with her at the last minute. I always tried to treat any woman I was with like a lady and you can be the most militant feminist in the world but ALMOST all women like to feel respected and appreciated and I never tried to make anyone feel obligated to me.And if a woman came back to my apt but didn't want to stay the night,again I always paid for a taxi for her.


----------



## WorkingWife

lovelygirl said:


> I friend of mine, 35 y.o. is single and hasn't been in a realtionship for 3 years now. During one of our discussions, she said "I don't need just a guy in my life... I need a man. But where are men today? To even think that they can't even pay you a dinner? _A real man wouldn't allow me to pay for the dinner, even if I insisted on doing so..._".
> 
> This got me thinking if men here agree with this saying or not.
> 
> Do you think you should pay most of the time or you dislike it when you're the one paying most of/all the time?
> Would you prefer she paid most of the time?
> or you think both partners should take turns?
> Is there any difference if you're at the early stages of dating/relationship ?
> 
> I will say my opinion later.


I think it depends on how/why the date is taking place.


Man is interested in woman and asks her out? HE PAYS. For everything that night.


Woman asks man out? SHE PAYS. For everything that night. And if he tries to pay, she INSISTS pretty hard on paying - and if she likes him, she can coyly let him know he is welcome pay when he invites her to something....


Man and woman both want to meet someone and connect by dating site or in some way where it's clear they're both looking to find someone? They go Dutch. At the very least the woman offers to pick up half the tab, and doesn't take it as a bad sign if the man lets her - after all, the guy may be dating a lot of people to find the right one and can't afford to pay for tons of first dates that don't become something more.


Once you're in a relationship - that's up to the individuals involved. I think people usually start divvying it up based on their income, and if one wants to do more expensive things than the other, they usually pay.


In your friend's case, she would not continue seeing men who are not "old fashioned" in the way she wants. I understand her sentiment but this will limit the dating pool for her. She might want to rethink it and consider guys who generally pay, or who pay when they invite. 

If her heart is set on finding a man who will and can pay for everything all the time, she needs to understand in 2017 this will take time and perseverence and she needs to really assess what she is bringing to the table to attract that type of man. She might want to be careful what she wishes for. She also might want to figure out where the type of man she's interested in congregate (conservative groups?, church? Organizations for wealthy people?) and do her fishing there.


----------



## Andy1001

WorkingWife said:


> I think it depends on how/why the date is taking place.
> 
> 
> Man is interested in woman and asks her out? HE PAYS. For everything that night.
> 
> 
> Woman asks man out? SHE PAYS. For everything that night. And if he tries to pay, she INSISTS pretty hard on paying - and if she likes him, she can coyly let him know he is welcome pay when he invites her to something....
> 
> 
> Man and woman both want to meet someone and connect by dating site or in some way where it's clear they're both looking to find someone? They go Dutch. At the very least the woman offers to pick up half the tab, and doesn't take it as a bad sign if the man lets her - after all, the guy may be dating a lot of people to find the right one and can't afford to pay for tons of first dates that don't become something more.
> 
> 
> Once you're in a relationship - that's up to the individuals involved. I think people usually start divvying it up based on their income, and if one wants to do more expensive things than the other, they usually pay.
> 
> 
> In your friend's case, she would not continue seeing men who are not "old fashioned" in the way she wants. I understand her sentiment but this will limit the dating pool for her. She might want to rethink it and consider guys who generally pay, or who pay when they invite.
> 
> If her heart is set on finding a man who will and can pay for everything all the time, she needs to understand in 2017 this will take time and perseverence and she needs to really assess what she is bringing to the table to attract that type of man. She might want to be careful what she wishes for. She also might want to figure out where the type of man she's interested in congregate (conservative groups?, church? Organizations for wealthy people?) and do her fishing there.


She needs to be hot.
Seriously hot.


----------



## EllisRedding

Andy1001 said:


> She needs to be hot.
> Seriously hot.


Lol, right to the point :smthumbup:


----------



## BetrayedDad

Bananapeel said:


> Wait, so dating is like getting a hooker? Kidding. I sincerely hope there aren't too many guys like that around.


I'd put the women who EXPECT the men to pay for every date in the SAME category as men who EXPECT sexual favors after paying for the date.

Both parties are engaged in a quid pro quo transaction. No different than a variation of prostitution. Money in exchange for company.


----------



## uhtred

I hope there aren't too many guys who think that paying for a date is paying for sex, but I think some do. 

I look at the whole "who pays?" question a little differently. If I were taking someone out, I would go to a place where I honestly didn't care about the money. If that means getting Togo's sandwiches and eating on a bench by the bay watching the sailboats, that's fine if it is a reasonable example of how I normally eat. What is the point of taking someone to Chez Expensive if you can never normally afford to eat there?

Most people can afford a dinner at a nice place without really worrying about who is paying. 




Bananapeel said:


> It can be, depending on the reason. If the guy is paying because he's afraid of upsetting the woman then you are right. If he's paying because that's what he likes to do, then it isn't. Basically, is the behavior being done for her or for him would define which category he fits in.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, so dating is like getting a hooker? Kidding. I sincerely hope there aren't too many guys like that around.


----------



## Vega

BetrayedDad said:


> I'd put the women who EXPECT the men to pay for every date in the SAME category as men who EXPECT sexual favors after paying for the date.
> 
> Both parties are engaged in a quid pro quo transaction. No different than a variation of prostitution. Money in exchange for company.


This happens more often than we realize. In fact, I think there was a man on TAM within the past year who thought that because he had taken the same woman out several times and spent 'X' amount of dollars on her that she 'should' be 'putting out' by now. 

Some people do/think this way even in marriage. I-did-the-dishes-now-you-owe-me-sex or I-had-sex-with-you-twice-last-week-and-now-you-owe-me-an-expensive-dinner. 

I used to work with a few woman who tried to set me up with their friends. I wasn't interested in dating, but they kept trying to egg me on, saying things like, "At least you get out of the house!" OR, "At least you get a free meal!". 

Just not my style. I don't use men for money, and I don't expect them to use me for sex.


----------



## lovelygirl

EllisRedding said:


> Given how far women have come with their careers/salaries where it is not uncommon for them to equal or exceed their SO in earning power, I find it pathetic that women in these positions would expect to always eat for free. Likewise, it is mind numbing to draw a correlation between a guy paying for every meal and how "trustworthy" he is.


To me, it's not related to the earning power, it's more of a gentleman thing that I'd rather he does for me. 

If I earned more would he expect me to pay on most dates?? No. I'd be turned off to be honest. 

I find it offensive though that some men think that women who want guys to pay on dates, want to get away with a free meal. That's very rude and it's a shame for a guy to think. Just like it's a shame for a woman to want it..because I know there are women out there who simply want to have a free meal.

Disgusting.


----------



## Wolf1974

EllisRedding said:


> Hmmmm ... I would say on one hand, and maybe I am old fashioned, I do believe in the guy paying on the first date. Since my W and I started dating I have paid a majority of the times we went out to eat. However, when we were in college, if we relied solely on me having money to go out to eat we would rarely go out lol, so since she was working she would pay more. Keep in mind as well, for a majority of our marriage (with the exception of the first few years) I have done much better financially (and now with my W as a SAHM I am of course paying regardless of who's wallet the money comes from lol), so I say about 98.7% of all meals in our lifetime I have paid.
> 
> I will add though a couple of things. Now keep in mind, I do believe on the whole "gentleman" approach, whether it be paying for meals, opening doors, etc... but also consider I have not been on the dating scene since 1997 lol. Given how far women have come with their careers/salaries where it is not uncommon for them to equal or exceed their SO in earning power, I find it pathetic that women in these positions would expect to *always eat for free.* Likewise, it is mind numbing to draw a correlation between a guy paying for every meal and how "trustworthy" he is.


I think many are speaking from a position of not having dated in a long time and that's ok but times have changed. Rare was it I was taken advantage of for a free meal, but it did happen to me, it does happen to others. And it happens both ways where women are also taken advantage of. It's also a lovely experience when you try and pull a chair out for a woman and she makes a scene over it :grin2:.

Dating now is probably more complex than ever where no one really understands the "rules" because thy are different to everyone as exhibited by the answers in this thread. So long is everyone is honest people suitable will find each other


----------



## Wolf1974

lovelygirl said:


> To me, it's not related to the earning power, it's more of a gentleman thing that I'd rather he does for me.
> 
> If I earned more would he expect me to pay on most dates?? No. I'd be turned off to be honest.
> 
> I find it offensive though that some men think that women who want guys to pay on dates, want to get away with a free meal. That's very rude and it's a shame for a guy to think. Just like it's a shame for a woman to want it..because I know there are women out there who simply want to have a free meal.
> 
> Disgusting.


You probably wouldn't judge so harshly if you had ever been taken been taken advantage of in this way. I have and yes it was very disgusting of them.

The best solution I have always offered to people worried about being taken advantage of or worried about expectations placed is to do simple things the first couple dates. 

Meet for just a beer or coffee the first time
Take a walk in the park for the second
Maybe a picnic or something simple for the third.

by then both should have a good gauge on each other to see if they have real interest. I dated ALOT for about 4 years after my divorce and only ever had one woman flat out say no to meeting for a beer on a first date. And that was fine by me....by her reaction I could tell we would never be compatible so we didn't waste each other's times.


----------



## Andy1001

lovelygirl said:


> To me, it's not related to the earning power, it's more of a gentleman thing that I'd rather he does for me.
> 
> If I earned more would he expect me to pay on most dates?? No. I'd be turned off to be honest.
> 
> I find it offensive though that some men think that women who want guys to pay on dates, want to get away with a free meal. That's very rude and it's a shame for a guy to think. Just like it's a shame for a woman to want it..because I know there are women out there who simply want to have a free meal.
> 
> Disgusting.


The way I looked at it when I was dating was a woman goes to a lot of trouble to get ready for a date.(Well at least the ones I dated did)She does her hair,nails,makeup,picks out what clothes to wear and all of this takes time.I just showered and got dressed and was ready for action.A women likes to feel appreciated and I felt the least I could do was pay for her evening.I was probably in a slightly different situation than most guys of my age in that even as a teenager I always made good money so paying for movies,meals,drinks etc didn't bother me but I understand it isn't the same for everyone.
Of course the ultimate goal was to sleep with her but I figured even if she didn't have sex with me she would still have had a good time and there would always be another night.
But they usually did sleep with me.


----------



## lovelygirl

BetrayedDad said:


> I'd put the women who EXPECT the men to pay for every date in the SAME category as men who EXPECT sexual favors after paying for the date.
> 
> Both parties are engaged in a quid pro quo transaction. No different than a variation of prostitution. Money in exchange for company.


Very well said. They both belong to the disgusting category made of hidden intentions.


----------



## musicftw07

EllisRedding said:


> Given how far women have come with their careers/salaries where it is not uncommon for them to equal or exceed their SO in earning power, I find it pathetic that women in these positions would expect to always eat for free. Likewise, it is mind numbing to draw a correlation between a guy paying for every meal and how "trustworthy" he is.


1000x this. Great post.

Women's liberation has freed men. Women have two arms, two legs, and a brain with which to earn currency. If she wants dinner, there ain't nothing getting in her way of paying for it. Our wallets can now be our own, provided we avoid marrying a woman below our income level and have an iron-clad prenup. Likewise, a woman's wallet can also be her own too.

With that comes the responsibility of her paying for what she wants. Screw this "real men pay" bullcrap. What's between a person's legs doesn't entitle them to a meal at someone else's expense. Whoever does the asking out should be who pays regardless of their gender, unless both agree to go dutch.

For the record, I have more disposable income than my girlfriend does due to her having more expenses, so I do the lion's share of buying when we go out. I have no problem with it, because it's not an expectation on her part. I do it because I want us to have fun, not because she'll think less of me as a man if I don't. She also bought me a piece of pizza for lunch today, and yet somehow my masculinity remains intact.

I run from *any* woman who prefaces a sentence with "A real man..." What's this about gender stereotypes being a bad thing again?


----------



## lovelygirl

Wolf1974 said:


> You probably wouldn't judge so harshly if you had ever been taken been taken advantage of in this way. I have and yes it was very disgusting of them.
> 
> The best solution I have always offered to people worried about being taken advantage of or worried about expectations placed is to do simple things the first couple dates.
> 
> Meet for just a beer or coffee the first time
> Take a walk in the park for the second
> Maybe a picnic or something simple for the third.
> 
> by then both should have a good gauge on each other to see if they have real interest. I dated ALOT for about 4 years after my divorce and only ever had one woman flat out say no to meeting for a beer on a first date. And that was fine by me....by her reaction I could tell we would never be compatible so we didn't waste each other's times.


Yeah I understand where you're coming from and I don't blame you.
Just as I'd appreciate him if he paid, I'd also appreciate him if he took me to simple places (like you mentioned..picnic ...etc). There are guys out there who simply want to *show off* to the girl by taking her to very expensive places. I don't like this either.
I'd rather start simple with a guy and if he wants to please me by taking me to expensive places, I'd happily do the same for him in return. But it would be better if the expensive stuff came a bit later in the dating period. 

First we need to understand if we're compatible. Also, I don't agree with dinner of the first date(s). Dinner is intimate and implies more than that. A simple hang out/drink would be enough for a start.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> *I think many are speaking from a position of not having dated in a long time and that's ok but times have changed.* Rare was it I was taken advantage of for a free meal, but it did happen to me, it does happen to others. And it happens both ways where women are also taken advantage of. It's also a lovely experience when you try and pull a chair out for a woman and she makes a scene over it :grin2:.
> 
> Dating now is probably more complex than ever where no one really understands the "rules" because thy are different to everyone as exhibited by the answers in this thread. So long is everyone is honest people suitable will find each other


How would you say it is different nowadays?

Just curious because my daughter is 21 and her experience seems pretty similar to mine from years ago in that the young men find it normal to pay.


----------



## EllisRedding

lovelygirl said:


> To me, it's not related to the earning power, it's more of a gentleman thing that I'd rather he does for me.
> 
> If I earned more would he expect me to pay on most dates?? No. I'd be turned off to be honest.
> 
> I find it offensive though that some men think that women who want guys to pay on dates, want to get away with a free meal. That's very rude and it's a shame for a guy to think. Just like it's a shame for a woman to want it..because I know there are women out there who simply want to have a free meal.
> 
> Disgusting.


I look at it as the difference between having someone pay and expecting someone to pay. Same difference as wanting to have sex with someone vs expecting it. When you do something with the expectation of getting something out of it, whether it be saying yes to a date with a guy you have little interest in so you can get a free meal, or taking a gal out for a date and spending loads of money thinking they owe you sex in return, there is seriously something wrong. Both men and women are guilty in doing this.

The problem with the whole earning power thing is that it is a double standard. Whether or not a guy makes more or less then a female he is expected to pay, that is the "gentlemen" thing to do. Even if a female is making significantly more then a man, she doesn't have to, or if he dare asks she can pull out the "you aren't a gentleman" card. 

In my case, I have been very fortunate with my career. I enjoy spoiling my W because I want to, not b/c I am expected to. I don't do it with the expectation that sex is the end result (although, if I actually did the math I am definitely not getting my moneys worth lol).


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> How would you say it is different nowadays?
> 
> Just curious because my daughter is 21 and her experience seems pretty similar to mine from years ago in that the young men find it normal to pay.


Really? Must live in different social spheres then. When I was a teen and dated I paid most but not all the time. When I became single for my second time I started off paying for everything but couple bad experiences and stopped. Dated several women now long term and we both were always most comfortable with I get this part you get that part of a date. Probably because we are both looking for equal partners in one another even if it's never exactly equal. 

My kiddos say that dating should be 50-50 and expect both partners to contribute.


----------



## Wolf1974

lovelygirl said:


> Yeah I understand where you're coming from and I don't blame you.
> Just as I'd appreciate him if he paid, I'd also appreciate him if he took me to simple places (like you mentioned..picnic ...etc). There are guys out there who simply want to *show off* to the girl by taking her to very expensive places. I don't like this either.
> I'd rather start simple with a guy and if he wants to please me by taking me to expensive places, I'd happily do the same for him in return. But it would be better if the expensive stuff came a bit later in the dating period.
> 
> First we need to understand if we're compatible. Also, I don't agree with dinner of the first date(s). *Dinner is intimate and implies more than that.* A simple hang out/drink would be enough for a start.


Also the significant pain that can come from the time a dinner takes when you figure out in the first 5 minutes you aren't compatible, they misrepresented themselves, they are rude or obnoxious. Coffee or beer and be done quickly lol


----------



## jld

I was talking about this thread tonight with my sons. The oldest said that men usually *want* to pay on a date, because it is a way of asserting dominance. He said that if the man does not pay, it is not a date.

I think his comment on dominance relates to the building of sexual tension by paying that someone here (@Bananapeel?) alluded to earlier. Now, this is probably only going to work if there is a male dom/fem sub dynamic already present. (Reverse who pays if you are in a domme/male sub relationship.)

So here is a question. For the folks that prefer an even split of some sort, how do you maintain sexual attraction?

ETA: @lovelygirl, please let me know if you consider this a threadjack, and I will be happy to start a separate thread. Very interesting topic, btw. Thank you for starting this discussion!


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Really? Must live in different social spheres then. When I was a teen and dated I paid most but not all the time. When I became single for my second time I started off paying for everything but couple bad experiences and stopped. Dated several women now long term and we both were always most comfortable with I get this part you get that part of a date. Probably because we are both looking for equal partners in one another even if it's never exactly equal.
> 
> My kiddos say that dating should be 50-50 and expect both partners to contribute.


She is graduating in chemical engineering in six weeks, and most requests for dates have come from the young men in her classes. So that is her reference.

She did say that engineers have a reputation for being conservative. That may at least partially explain the traditional dating dynamics she has experienced.

The other part is likely that she just attracts a certain kind of male--one that finds it normal to do the asking and paying for dates.


----------



## wild jade

I'm not old-fashioned, not conservative, and not looking for a free meal. But I would only go on dates where he pays. IME, the only way to know if a guy is actually interested is to see just how much he will put into it. How a guy handles money is only one clue, but it's a useful one. 

If we're a thing, I'm happy to treat.

My dating experience is very last century.


----------



## wild jade

Duguesclin said:


> Maybe I am old fashioned. I do not want to give women too much power :wink2:.


You think the one who pays has the power? 

And what is wrong with women having power?


----------



## Vinnydee

I am an old fashioned guy. I always pay, even if the woman invited me. If she is insistent to pay, I will let her but next time I will take her to someplace more expensive on me. Being cheap, frugal or whatever you want to call it, is not something most women admire in a man. How you look is important too. It is no secret that we are attracted to people first by their looks. We are genetically designed to assess mates who seem to have good genes and we do that by looks still. No getting around that.

A gentleman always pays unless the women insists. If she just offers, I would tell her that her company was payment enough and leave it at that. I almost always got a second date and/or sex after the first date. I treated a woman like she was a princess and some girls like that.


----------



## D_Man

Being in college - I don't like to pay for dates because I don't have the flexibility to do so. I also don't like to pay for women on dates because I've known a whole hell of a lot of girls who literally just put up with me for one date so they can score free food.

I think the first couple of dates a man and women go on should be split independently and once chemistry is established, the guy should pay for a majority of meals. However, society tends to dictate how things should really go down. Chivalry is dead, and too many girls out there (especially feminists) cry inequality but yet expect guys to pay for them? It's hypocritical.


----------



## Affaircare

I also always went with the policy that the one who did the inviting, does the paying. 

The thing I discovered as I began to date after divorcing my exH (before I met Dear Hubby  ) was that if a man takes a woman out for dinner and does all that paying, he acts as if he has the right to something in return. 

Now I don't date 2-3 men at a time. I tend to go one at a time, and only if I have some reason to say "I may want to know more about you." So if I was already a bit interested and he asked me out to dinner, I did expect him to pay and also to be a gentleman and not EXPECT sex in return for a dinner! 

I knew of friends of mine who dated a different guy every night of the week just so she'd get free dinner and drinks, and I'm sorry to say that does seem like a transaction to me (aka 'I'll buy you dinner and booze if you blow me.') Hey they are consenting adults and can live the way they choose! Not my circus, not my monkeys!

But *I* am not that way, and thus I tended to be leery about going out on a dinner date until I knew a man from somewhere and had maybe a couple coffee dates or dutch lunches under our belts. If I had some reason to believe he was interested and fairly decent, I'd agree to go out to dinner if he invited, and I expected him to pay. If I invited him to dinner--which was rare but it happened--I'd pull out my wallet. I invited. But if there was ever that attitude of "I paid for dinner, now you'll pay me back"... well that's entitlement rearing its ugly head and I never picked p that phone again!!!!


----------



## MrsHolland

Can only comment on how I have lived because it is an each to their own kind of thing. Personally I have never asked a man on a date until after a relationship was formed. Have never paid for any date or holiday, event etc until after a relationship was formed. But I have paid for many nights out once in a relationship. 

We tend to spend a fair bit of money on lifestyle, dinners out, concerts, holidays etc, MrH still pays for most of it but he earns big dollars. I do however treat him to a very exy dinner out every so often.


----------



## jld

wild jade said:


> I'm not old-fashioned, not conservative, and not looking for a free meal. *But I would only go on dates where he pays. IME, the only way to know if a guy is actually interested is to see just how much he will put into it. How a guy handles money is only one clue, but it's a useful one. *
> 
> If we're a thing, I'm happy to treat.
> 
> My dating experience is very last century.


I agree with this. And I think that feminist male author I mentioned does, too.

If a woman does not want to end up supporting a guy who sits around unproductive in life, she has to have some criteria for evaluating him. How he spends his money can show what he values. Useful info.


----------



## jld

D_Man said:


> Chivalry is dead, and too many girls out there (especially feminists) cry inequality but yet expect guys to pay for them? It's hypocritical.


Are you familiar with the saying, "Equality is for the boardroom, not the bedroom"?

If you insist on equality everywhere, especially according to your definition of it, you may short circuit attraction.


----------



## jld

Affaircare said:


> I also always went with the policy that the one who did the inviting, does the paying.
> 
> The thing I discovered as I began to date after divorcing my exH (before I met Dear Hubby  ) was that if a man takes a woman out for dinner and does all that paying, he acts as if he has the right to something in return.
> 
> Now I don't date 2-3 men at a time. I tend to go one at a time, and only if I have some reason to say "I may want to know more about you." So if I was already a bit interested and he asked me out to dinner, I did expect him to pay and also to be a gentleman and not EXPECT sex in return for a dinner!
> 
> I knew of friends of mine who dated a different guy every night of the week just so she'd get free dinner and drinks, and I'm sorry to say that does seem like a transaction to me (aka 'I'll buy you dinner and booze if you blow me.') Hey they are consenting adults and can live the way they choose! Not my circus, not my monkeys!
> 
> But *I* am not that way, and thus I tended to be leery about going out on a dinner date until I knew a man from somewhere and had maybe a couple coffee dates or dutch lunches under our belts. If I had some reason to believe he was interested and fairly decent, I'd agree to go out to dinner if he invited, and I expected him to pay. If I invited him to dinner--which was rare but it happened--I'd pull out my wallet. I invited. But if there was ever that attitude of "I paid for dinner, now you'll pay me back"... well *that's entitlement rearing its ugly head and I never picked p that phone again!!!!*


Entitlement is definitely an attraction killer.

I do not understand how a woman can stand having sex with a man who thinks she owes it to him. And this even happens in some marriages!


----------



## wild jade

jld said:


> I agree with this. And I think that feminist male author I mentioned does, too.
> 
> If a woman does not want to end up supporting a guy who sits around unproductive in life, she has to have some criteria for evaluating him. How he spends his money can show what he values. Useful info.


I'm not really evaluating him so much as his interest level in me. I also find guys who think I'll be impressed by their money (or position) a big turn-off.

As I said, I'm not looking for a free meal. Just whether or not he's actually interested in me or just looking to slum it for some fun and a quick lay.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> It might be interesting to have a thread talking about what it means to each person to be old fashioned.
> 
> It sounds like you are very happy in your relationship, Satya. All the best.


We have a generation of young men who do not understand the concept of taking a woman out for an evening,treating her well,making her feel valued and letting her know you appreciate and enjoy her company.I asked some of the girls who work for me how often they go to a restaurant with their partners and I was amazed at the answer.Some of these girls have never been invited to dinner without knowing they would have to pay their own way. I'm not talking about teenagers but women in their early to mid twenties and these girls work in a gym so they are fit,good looking women.It seems these days young men are trying to play by a rule book that nobody actually possesses.They are so afraid of appearing weak that they come across as arrogant *******s.
Then they wonder why they don't get a second date.


----------



## jld

wild jade said:


> I'm not really evaluating him so much as his interest level in me. I also find guys who think I'll be impressed by their money (or position) a big turn-off.
> 
> As I said, I'm not looking for a free meal. Just whether or not he's actually interested in me or just looking to slum it for some fun and a quick lay.


Whatever info you get is surely helpful.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> We have a generation of young men who do not understand the concept of taking a woman out for an evening,treating her well,making her feel valued and letting her know you appreciate and enjoy her company.I asked some of the girls who work for me how often they go to a restaurant with their partners and I was amazed at the answer.Some of these girls have never been invited to dinner without knowing they would have to pay their own way. I'm not talking about teenagers but women in their early to mid twenties and these girls work in a gym so they are fit,good looking women.It seems these days young men are trying to play by a rule book that nobody actually possesses.They are so afraid of appearing weak that they come across as arrogant *******s.
> Then they wonder why they don't get a second date.


The girls get asked out but they always pay?

Ar least they have the sense to refuse a second "date."


----------



## EllisRedding

I think part of the issue in general is how the roles of men and women have changed, which in many respects conflicts with the more conservative stance some here share (including myself). For example, you hear about women wanting to be treated as equals, women equaling/exceeding men financially, etc... (all things I have no issues with) but then some of those very same women expect special treatment b/c they are women. So which is it, you want to be treated as equal or you want special treatment (or you want both as long as it benefits you). Something doesn't quite jive with this. On the other side, you have some here claiming that a guy's "trustworthiness" is based on his willingness to pay for dates, or the real doosie is claiming that a guy should always pay to simply avoid giving a woman too much power :slap:

I do wonder, for women who are doing well financially, is there some sort of sliding scale as to when you should offer to pay or contribute (not factoring in marriage or maybe a LTR where your finances are all commingled), or is it basically "You aren't a real man if I have to ever pay".

Unfortunately, if you expect that a guy needs to wine/dine you indefinitely, then you can't complain when he has an expectation that this should lead to sex.

All you can hope, is that both people are honest about their expectations, lay the cards out there and see where they fall, instead of playing games based on your own personal expectations.


----------



## jld

Dug was joking about giving women too much power. That is what I understood by the wink, anyway.

But I have to say, a man's paying, particularly when you know it is just part of his character, with no expectations, can be a real aphrodisiac, at least to some of us. Definitely shows confidence.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I was talking about this thread tonight with my sons. The oldest said that men usually *want* to pay on a date, because it is a way of asserting dominance. He said that if the man does not pay, it is not a date.
> 
> I think his comment on dominance relates to the building of sexual tension by paying that someone here (@Bananapeel?) alluded to earlier. Now, this is probably only going to work if there is a male dom/fem sub dynamic already present. (Reverse who pays if you are in a domme/male sub relationship.)
> 
> *So here is a question. For the folks that prefer an even split of some sort, how do you maintain sexual attraction?
> *
> ETA: @lovelygirl, please let me know if you consider this a threadjack, and I will be happy to start a separate thread. Very interesting topic, btw. Thank you for starting this discussion!


Not sure I understand why you think sexual attraction is keyed to money. I have always made a blue collar living. I have never been rich and honestly never want to be. I don't drive fancy cars or have a fancy house or wardrobe. I have always maintained that relationships should be 50-50 but that doesn't mean equal. But financially a woman I am with will need to contribute as I'm not interested in financing everything thing we do. Never have I been in a sexless relationship. Attracting a partner and maintaining one has never been an issue.


----------



## Wolf1974

I will say this though one reason I have never resented spending money on my GF is because she is always genuinely grateful when I do. I mean we have been together almost 3.5 years and even just last week I bought her a burrito at chipotle. Nothing fancy just a quick lunch after a hike we took. Walking out she said "thank you so much for lunch baby". She always does that and I never feel taken advantage of as a result.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Not sure I understand why you think sexual attraction is keyed to money. I have always made a blue collar living. I have never been rich and honestly never want to be. I don't drive fancy cars or have a fancy house or wardrobe. I have always maintained that relationships should be 50-50 but that doesn't mean equal. But financially a woman I am with will need to contribute as I'm not interested in financing everything thing we do. Never have I been in a sexless relationship. Attracting a partner and maintaining one has never been an issue.


So for the women you have been with, power may not have been part of their attraction? Or maybe there was a different sort of power?

Money is a form of power, after all. Not the only one and surely not even the most important one. But a form of it.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> The girls get asked out but they always pay?
> 
> Ar least they have the sense to refuse a second "date."


What they said was they would normally just meet for drinks and maybe have something to eat in whatever bar they were in but at least half of them said they felt it was expected of them to pay their own way.I brought up the subject of being asked out to dinner and it seemed an alien concept to some of them,the younger ones mainly.Now these girls are very open with me and when I told them about collecting my dates,paying for everything and making sure she would get home safely it shocked a lot of them but they all agreed it would be great to be treated so well once in a while.
The all agreed I would be coming home in the taxi with them too.lol.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> So for the women you have been with, power may not have been part of their attraction? Or maybe there was a different sort of power?
> 
> Money is a form of power, after all. Not the only one and surely not even the most important one. But a form of it.


Money might be a type but I know for certain any woman who desired that above all else isn't someone who would interest me in the slightest. And I have met a few who wanted a certain lifestyle, or a guy with a certain car, or house. And that's fine that they weren't interested in me as a result because I certainly wasn't interested in them if that's what they wanted. End of the day we all find mates we are compatible with hopefully .

Most all the women I have dated at one time before me dated a rich guy (compared to me), not hard to do when I'm pulling in civil service wages lol. Most of them all had the same story that they felt like an object or a thing, just another shiny toy. They found that a complete turn off. So my power is probably that I don't treat them like objects or beneath me but rather as an equal.


----------



## Andy1001

EllisRedding said:


> I think part of the issue in general is how the roles of men and women have changed, which in many respects conflicts with the more conservative stance some here share (including myself). For example, you hear about women wanting to be treated as equals, women equaling/exceeding men financially, etc... (all things I have no issues with) but then some of those very same women expect special treatment b/c they are women. So which is it, you want to be treated as equal or you want special treatment (or you want both as long as it benefits you). Something doesn't quite jive with this. On the other side, you have some here claiming that a guy's "trustworthiness" is based on his willingness to pay for dates, or the real doosie is claiming that a guy should always pay to simply avoid giving a woman too much power :slap:
> 
> I do wonder, for women who are doing well financially, is there some sort of sliding scale as to when you should offer to pay or contribute (not factoring in marriage or maybe a LTR where your finances are all commingled), or is it basically "You aren't a real man if I have to ever pay".
> 
> Unfortunately, if you expect that a guy needs to wine/dine you indefinitely, then you can't complain when he has an expectation that this should lead to sex.
> 
> All you can hope, is that both people are honest about their expectations, lay the cards out there and see where they fall, instead of playing games based on your own personal expectations.


To be fair the comment about not giving a woman too much power was a joke.
The biggest problem with dating is there is so much bs attached to it,all these "rules".Should the man pay,should the woman at least offer,should we go Dutch.
I played by my own rules and I always paid except when my date would insist it was her turn.With my long term gf she tries to pay as often as she can but it is not necessary.
Instead of worrying about who is going to pay,spend the time getting to know the person you are with.


----------



## chillymorn69

barf!

any man who don't pay is a cheap sob.


Just the way it is.


----------



## EllisRedding

Andy1001 said:


> To be fair the comment about not giving a woman too much power was a joke.
> The biggest problem with dating is there is so much bs attached to it,all these "rules".Should the man pay,should the woman at least offer,should we go Dutch.
> I played by my own rules and I always paid except when my date would insist it was her turn.With my long term gf she tries to pay as often as she can but it is not necessary.
> Instead of worrying about who is going to pay,spend the time getting to know the person you are with.


Although I do think that part of the comment was made in jest, based on other posts I would bet there is some truth to that comment ...

I see the whole issue now as a generational issue, not a specific gender issue. I don't ever see myself having to date again so fortunately it is not something I will ever need to navigate through lol.


----------



## EllisRedding

Wolf1974 said:


> Not sure I understand why you think sexual attraction is keyed to money. I have always made a blue collar living. I have never been rich and honestly never want to be. I don't drive fancy cars or have a fancy house or wardrobe. I have always maintained that relationships should be 50-50 but that doesn't mean equal. But financially a woman I am with will need to contribute as I'm not interested in financing everything thing we do. Never have I been in a sexless relationship. Attracting a partner and maintaining one has never been an issue.


I think it is safe to say that money/power is attractive to women (some, many, IDK?). What I mean by that, if a guy has money/power, he will have a larger pool of women to choose from. Doesn't mean at all that he will somehow find the right person for him, just simply that the numbers would fall in his favor, other qualities that maybe aren't quite as attractive would get overlooked. On the other side, and as you have pointed out, just b/c you aren't rich and don't drive a fancy car doesn't mean you can't attract women or can't having meaningful sexual/emotional relationships.


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

Andy1001 said:


> I brought up the subject of being asked out to dinner and it seemed an alien concept to some of them,the younger ones mainly.Now these girls are very open with me and when I told them about collecting my dates,paying for everything and making sure she would get home safely it shocked a lot of them but they all agreed it would be great to be treated so well once in a while.


You hear about this nonsense all the time. A lot of today's young men just expect to sit their lazy asses on the couch with their date and watch a movie. Wow. Such effort and romance - be still my beating heart. 

LOL...may I also assume these troglodytes order in a pizza to eat during the movie so it's considered "dinner and a movie?"

No wonder these young ladies were impressed with you, Andy. They don't know what it's *like* to date a true gentleman.


----------



## jld

She'sStillGotIt said:


> You hear about this nonsense all the time. A lot of today's young men just expect to sit their lazy asses on the couch with their date and watch a movie. Wow. Such effort and romance - be still my beating heart.
> 
> LOL...may I also assume these troglodytes order in a pizza to eat during the movie so it's considered "dinner and a movie?"
> 
> No wonder these young ladies were impressed with you, Andy. They don't know what it's *like* to date a true gentleman.


And it does not require a lot of money. It does require consideration.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Although I do think that part of the comment was made in jest, based on other posts I would bet there is some truth to that comment ...
> 
> I see the whole issue now as a generational issue, not a specific gender issue. I don't ever see myself having to date again so fortunately it is not something I will ever need to navigate through lol.


I am not even sure it is generational. There have always been women who earned money, for example, and women who accepted to carry their husbands, financially and otherwise, through life.

I think this is more about a woman's expectations and what a man considers his responsibilities.


----------



## jld

chillymorn69 said:


> barf!
> 
> any man who don't pay is a cheap sob.
> 
> 
> Just the way it is.


Or he simply has not been educated any other way.


----------



## arbitrator

EllisRedding said:


> I think it is safe to say that money/power is attractive to women (some, many, IDK?). What I mean by that, if a guy has money/power, he will have a larger pool of women to choose from. Doesn't mean at all that he will somehow find the right person for him, just simply that the numbers would fall in his favor, other qualities that maybe aren't quite as attractive would get overlooked. *On the other side, and as you have pointed out, just b/c you aren't rich and don't drive a fancy car doesn't mean you can't attract women or can't have meaningful sexual/emotional relationships.*


*Not to be intentionally contradictory, but sometimes, I really wonder about the accuracy of that statement!*


----------



## jld

arbitrator said:


> *Sometimes, I really wonder about the accuracy of that statement!*


You seem to be attracting plenty of gals at your church, arb.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I am not even sure it is generational. There have always been women who earned money, for example, and women who accepted to carry their husbands, financially and otherwise, through life.
> 
> I think this is more about a woman's expectations and what a man considers his responsibilities.


I think it is generational as many more women now are working full time, making good money, etc... vs in the past. The problem, and if you look at your post, you somehow translate this into people saying a woman who accepts carrying their husbands financially and otherwise, which is furthest from what people here have been saying.

As well, it is about expectations/responsibilities of both men and women, not expectation of one vs responsibility of the other.


----------



## EllisRedding

arbitrator said:


> *Not to be intentionally contradictory, but sometimes, I really wonder about the accuracy of that statement!*


The way I view it, you may be able to attract more thanks to money/power, but maybe you are attracting more for all the wrong reasons, IDK. 

I would say that at face value, money/power is a more attractive feature for a guy to have in terms of attracting a female, whereas I don't think the opposite (a woman with money/power) elicits the same response from men. On the other side, you could argue that a woman's physical looks could attract more males. Just general statements here, does in no way apply to everyone of course, and doesn't mean that having these qualities ensures you will find the person who will make you happy.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I think it is generational as many more women now are working full time, making good money, etc... vs in the past. The problem, and if you look at your post, you somehow translate this into people saying a woman who accepts carrying their husbands financially and otherwise, which is furthest from what people here have been saying.


I don't think it is a stretch to imagine those young women that Andy describes as ending up carrying their husbands through life. 



> As well, it is about expectations/responsibilities of both men and women, not expectation of one vs responsibility of the other.


In a way that may be true. But I still think the slant is more in one direction, at least in the context of this thread.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I don't think it is a stretch to imagine those young women that Andy describes as ending up carrying their husbands through life.


I think a part though that is open to personal interpretation is what constitutes "carrying their H through life."


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I think a part though that is open to personal interpretation is what constitutes "carrying their H through life."


Well, in the case of those gals, it may be financially as well as emotionally.


----------



## arbitrator

jld said:


> You seem to be attracting plenty of gals at your church, arb.


*Trust me, @jld ~ none that are remotely attractive to me or even me to them; or who can even begin to stimulate me with looks or intellectually. And vice-versa!

And while I'll be the very first to admit that I'm no "world-beater" myself, there's no woman at my church who really begins to pique my interest!*


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Well, in the case of those gals, it may be financially as well as emotionally.


Once again though, what does that mean exactly? How do you equate him paying/not paying as requiring to be emotionally carried? Likewise, financially, what do you consider carrying him (i.e. is it is simple as her making more then him, is it some percentage more, etc...)?


----------



## jld

arbitrator said:


> *Trust me, @jld ~ none that are remotely attractive to me or even me to them; or who can even begin to stimulate me with looks or intellectually.
> 
> And while I'll be the very first to admit that I'm no "world-beater" myself, there's no woman at my church who really begins to pique my interest!*


And that is often the challenge, isn't it, arb? Finding mutual attraction.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Once again though, what does that mean exactly? How do you equate him paying/not paying as requiring to be emotionally carried? Likewise, financially, what do you consider carrying him (i.e. is it is simple as her making more then him, is it some percentage more, etc...)?


I just do not see good things coming from young men who expect a date to pay for herself, and maybe him, too. Certainly not what I want for my own daughter.

A man who sits on the couch and plays video games all day while his wife earns the family income, cleans the house, and raises the kids has to start somewhere, right?


----------



## Bananapeel

jld said:


> I was talking about this thread tonight with my sons. The oldest said that men usually *want* to pay on a date, because it is a way of asserting dominance. He said that if the man does not pay, it is not a date.
> 
> I think his comment on dominance relates to the building of sexual tension by paying that someone here (@Bananapeel?) alluded to earlier. Now, this is probably only going to work if there is a male dom/fem sub dynamic already present. (Reverse who pays if you are in a domme/male sub relationship.)


It's true for me. I find it very easy to date using the traditional role model dynamic. I'm very adept at finding women that like that dynamic too, and can screen out women that don't really click with my dating style during a first date. I find that the traditional dating roles does build up sexual tension so the women usually want to have sex within a date or two, if I'm interested. It is also very easy to maintain a highly sexual relationship for as long as I'm dating the woman once those relationship roles are established. As far as the cost goes, it really is negligible. I consider dating a form of entertainment and plan it into my entertainment budget, so I don't worry about the little bit of money. I've found that for women even getting ready for a date is part of the sexual build up for them. All the time that they spend getting their hair/nails done, choosing clothes, etc. is a prelude to an evening where they know they just have to relax and enjoy and I'll take care of everything (choosing the venue, covering the cost, making the moves on them). It works for my personality type and taking on the traditional male role is part of the buildup of sexual tension for me too.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I just do not see good things coming from young men who expect a date to pay for herself, and maybe him, too. Certainly not what I want for my own daughter.
> *
> A man who sits on the couch and plays video games all day while his wife earns the family income, cleans the house, and raises the kids has to start somewhere, right?*


I think you are trying to take the extreme with the bolded to make your point, as I don't find that to be the norm. 

What I see more of, dual parent working households, both contributing in terms financially, raising kids, housework, etc...


----------



## NextTimeAround

EllisRedding said:


> I think part of the issue in general is how the roles of men and women have changed, which in many respects conflicts with the more conservative stance some here share (including myself). *For example, you hear about women wanting to be treated as equals, women equaling/exceeding men financially, etc...* (all things I have no issues with) but then some of those very same women expect special treatment b/c they are women. So which is it, you want to be treated as equal or you want special treatment (or you want both as long as it benefits you). Something doesn't quite jive with this. On the other side, you have some here claiming that a guy's "trustworthiness" is based on his willingness to pay for dates, or the real doosie is claiming that a guy should always pay to simply avoid giving a woman too much power :slap:
> 
> I do wonder, for women who are doing well financially, is there some sort of sliding scale as to when you should offer to pay or contribute (not factoring in marriage or maybe a LTR where your finances are all commingled), or is it basically "You aren't a real man if I have to ever pay".
> 
> Unfortunately, if you expect that a guy needs to wine/dine you indefinitely, then you can't complain when he has an expectation that this should lead to sex.
> 
> All you can hope, is that both people are honest about their expectations, lay the cards out there and see where they fall, instead of playing games based on your own personal expectations.


When women generally make 80 cents on the dollar, how do you think that happens?


----------



## EllisRedding

NextTimeAround said:


> When women generally make 80 cents on the dollar, how do you think that happens?


Is that in fact true? I have seen several reports that have disproven this, and shown the "wage gap" is significantly less than reported.

I also do know quite a few women who are doing well for themselves financially, better then men ...

Quick edit - I don't want to sidetrack this thread as the "wage gap" is really a different topic.


----------



## Andy1001

Bananapeel said:


> It's true for me. I find it very easy to date using the traditional role model dynamic. I'm very adept at finding women that like that dynamic too, and can screen out women that don't really click with my dating style during a first date. I find that the traditional dating roles does build up sexual tension so the women usually want to have sex within a date or two, if I'm interested. It is also very easy to maintain a highly sexual relationship for as long as I'm dating the woman once those relationship roles are established. As far as the cost goes, it really is negligible. I consider dating a form of entertainment and plan it into my entertainment budget, so I don't worry about the little bit of money. I've found that for women even getting ready for a date is part of the sexual build up for them. All the time that they spend getting their hair/nails done, choosing clothes, etc. is a prelude to an evening where they know they just have to relax and enjoy and I'll take care of everything (choosing the venue, covering the cost, making the moves on them). It works for my personality type and taking on the traditional male role is part of the buildup of sexual tension for me too.


I couldn't agree more with everything you have written here.When a woman really relaxes in your company she is automatically feeling attracted to you imo.I never pressured dinner dates,I gave them my undivided attention all night and when it was time to go home I never even vaguely hinted at coming with them.Jld talks about power in a relationship and she is right.These women felt they had the power to either sleep with me or not and I gave them the impression that I was happy either way.And with hand on heart I would say my success rate was over ninety percent.By the end of the night they began to see me as a challenge rather than themselves as a prize.
I had two big advantages over the other men in the dating pool.
I NEVER got emotionally attached to anyone until I met my current gf and by my early twenties I had money to burn.


----------



## uhtred

on the 80c/dollar, the answer depends on exactly what question you are asking. 

Are you correcting for job choice, present position and career path? Is such a correction even the right thing to do, or does it hide the very issue you are trying to measure?

I think the question you want to answer is if an equally skilled and ambitious woman and man attempt to follow the same career path, on average will they have equal success and pay. Even that answer may depend dramatically on which career path is chosen. 






EllisRedding said:


> Is that in fact true? I have seen several reports that have disproven this, and shown the "wage gap" is significantly less than reported.
> 
> I also do know quite a few women who are doing well for themselves financially, better then men ...
> 
> Quick edit - I don't want to sidetrack this thread as the "wage gap" is really a different topic.


----------



## musicftw07

jld said:


> EllisRedding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again though, what does that mean exactly? How do you equate him paying/not paying as requiring to be emotionally carried? Likewise, financially, what do you consider carrying him (i.e. is it is simple as her making more then him, is it some percentage more, etc...)?
> 
> 
> 
> I just do not see good things coming from young men who expect a date to pay for herself, and maybe him, too. Certainly not what I want for my own daughter.
Click to expand...

I flat out told my girlfriend that I disagree with the societal expectation that I pay for everything, especially since she made significantly more than me at the time. (Our incomes are now virtually identical.) That's not to say that I didn't pay sometimes, because I did.

However, so did she. And I let her. It had created a much more egalitarian relationship than I've ever had before. We don't keep score, we don't get resentful, and we just go with the flow. If I ever want to save money by not going out, I tell her that. If she chooses to pay my way so we can go out anyway, that's her choice, but I don't expect it. Otherwise we stay in. 

I am teaching my daughter to take care of herself and pay her own way through this world. She's not going to depend on a guy for material wealth or even a simple meal. If she goes out, she can pay her own way. I'd teach the same exact thing if I had a son instead of a daughter.



> A man who sits on the couch and plays video games all day while his wife earns the family income, cleans the house, and raises the kids has to start somewhere, right?


This has nothing to do with anything regarding the topic at hand.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Some thoughts I have about dating and money / costs:

1. I think men understand the symbolism of their behavior. This includes paying for dates, gifts and transportation and other entertainment. A rich guy may take a woman to an expensive restaurant and pay the whole bill, but he probably won't care about her transport to and from the restaurant. 

OTOH, a guy who has less money to spend will go to a less expensive restaurant but then will pick her up or pay for her taxi.

2. Likewise, I've noticed that even though a guy takes you to dinner on your birthday, if he doesn't give you a gift, well, once again you're not that special.

3. My experience tells me that if you don't spend a guy's money he will lower his opinion of you. Choose a more casual (ie less expensive) restaurant, and instead of being glad that you're low maintenance, he will call you a cheap date.

4. Help to split the cost of a date? That makes him capable of multi-dating you.... and better still, he won't hassle the other one about helping to pay.


----------



## jld

musicftw07 said:


> I flat out told my girlfriend that I disagree with the societal expectation that I pay for everything, especially since she made significantly more than me at the time. (Our incomes are now virtually identical.) That's not to say that I didn't pay sometimes, because I did.
> 
> However, so did she. And I let her. It had created a much more egalitarian relationship than I've ever had before. We don't keep score, we don't get resentful, and we just go with the flow. If I ever want to save money by not going out, I tell her that. If she chooses to pay my way so we can go out anyway, that's her choice, but I don't expect it. Otherwise we stay in.
> 
> I am teaching my daughter to take care of herself and pay her own way through this world. She's not going to depend on a guy for material wealth or even a simple meal. If she goes out, she can pay her own way. I'd teach the same exact thing if I had a son instead of a daughter.
> 
> This has nothing to do with anything regarding the topic at hand.


Well, I think it does. 

And I would like to help young women avoid going down that path.

My daughter is graduating very soon with her engineering degree. She certainly does not need a man. 

But if a man decides he wants her, I am reassured to know that she has very good weeder criteria in place.


----------



## Phil Anders

I try not to make dates displays of spending power; I'd rather do something active and outdoorsy that focuses on conversation instead of ostentation. 

But, if I'm asking her out, then I expect to pay for whatever costs arise. It's nicer if she offers to chip in or just graciously says "thanks" than if she seems noticeably entitled. And if despite this framing a woman insisted on splitting the tab on an early date, I'd take it as a possible sign of imminent friend-zoning; an implied "hey, i don't want to feel like I owe you anything romantically."

So yeah, I expect to pay first time, as I'm usually the one doing the inviting. However: In a continuing relationship, I also expect that the woman will reciprocate & suggest outings herself rather than simply following me around like a puppy dog. And if next week she's on fire to see movie _x_ and eat at cafe _y_, then she can pay and I can thank her for a great evening.

That back-and-forth arrangement works pretty well, since I hate trying to divvy up bills on the spot, which really kills the mood. It also lets each person feel treated and cared for in turn.



jld said:


> So here is a question. For the folks that prefer an even split of some sort, how do you maintain sexual attraction?


Why on earth should that be difficult? I'd have a harder time maintaining sexual attraction with someone who expected me to white-knight everything in her life. I won't stick up for lazy men who won't put any thought into dates, but I can't stand women who won't embrace their own agency as human beings. 

It isn't cute or endearing or "old-fashioned", just annoying as **** and a massive boner-killer. It makes sex feel disconcertingly transactional, a reward I may get for being chivalrous etc, instead of something we both want and share. No, thanks. And if she can't experience sexual attraction unless I *"dominantly"* open my wallet every time we go out, then she won't be dating me for long.


----------



## jld

It seems to be working pretty well for Bananapeel.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.


----------



## musicftw07

jld said:


> musicftw07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I flat out told my girlfriend that I disagree with the societal expectation that I pay for everything, especially since she made significantly more than me at the time. (Our incomes are now virtually identical.) That's not to say that I didn't pay sometimes, because I did.
> 
> However, so did she. And I let her. It had created a much more egalitarian relationship than I've ever had before. We don't keep score, we don't get resentful, and we just go with the flow. If I ever want to save money by not going out, I tell her that. If she chooses to pay my way so we can go out anyway, that's her choice, but I don't expect it. Otherwise we stay in.
> 
> I am teaching my daughter to take care of herself and pay her own way through this world. She's not going to depend on a guy for material wealth or even a simple meal. If she goes out, she can pay her own way. I'd teach the same exact thing if I had a son instead of a daughter.
> 
> This has nothing to do with anything regarding the topic at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think it does.
> 
> And I would like to help young women avoid going down that path.
> 
> My daughter is graduating very soon with her engineering degree. She certainly does not need a man.
> 
> But if a man decides he wants her, I am reassured to know that she has very good weeder criteria in place.
Click to expand...

It's good to have weeder criteria, no doubt about it. However, the criterion that a man always pays is going to weed out guys who don't fit your model. I make $65k/year, own my house, own my car outright, have great credit, raise my daughter on my own 50% of the time, and have a substantial savings.

I just don't believe your daughter is entitled to a man always paying for her simply because she has a vagina. Especially when she has the ability to pay for herself.


----------



## Andy1001

This should throw the cat amongst the pigeons.
To the guys who expect or insist that their dates pay for themselves or pay every second date can I ask you at what level of attractiveness are you dealing with.Any tens,nines even.I really want to know is there a level at which you think a woman shouldn't expect the man to pay for everything.
Anyone?


----------



## musicftw07

Andy1001 said:


> This should throw the cat amongst the pigeons.
> To the guys who expect or insist that their dates pay for themselves or pay every second date can I ask you at what level of attractiveness are you dealing with.Any tens,nines even.I really want to know is there a level at which you think a woman shouldn't expect the man to pay for everything.
> Anyone?


Attractiveness level has nothing to do with it. I don't care if the woman is a perfect 10 (and my girlfriend is at least an 8); if she *expects* me to pay for her, I walk.

A relationship is a want, not a need. I love my girlfriend with all my heart and want to spend the rest of my life with her. But I don't need her. 

However, I do need financial independence and solvency to have a good life and raise my child. 

Same rules apply, regardless of sex or attractiveness.


----------



## wild jade

Wolf1974 said:


> Not sure I understand why you think sexual attraction is keyed to money. I have always made a blue collar living. I have never been rich and honestly never want to be. I don't drive fancy cars or have a fancy house or wardrobe. I have always maintained that relationships should be 50-50 but that doesn't mean equal. But financially a woman I am with will need to contribute as I'm not interested in financing everything thing we do. Never have I been in a sexless relationship. Attracting a partner and maintaining one has never been an issue.


I agree with this. Money isn't important, and definitely for LTR there will always be give and take. 

To my mind, if a guy has a truckload of money, it means nothing if he wines and dines you. It doesn't actually cost him anything. If he doesn't have that money, just buying me a pretzel from a sidewalk vendor means so much more in terms of what he's willing to share. And that is way way more important than how many material possessions he might have.


----------



## wild jade

Andy1001 said:


> This should throw the cat amongst the pigeons.
> To the guys who expect or insist that their dates pay for themselves or pay every second date can I ask you at what level of attractiveness are you dealing with.Any tens,nines even.I really want to know is there a level at which you think a woman shouldn't expect the man to pay for everything.
> Anyone?


Your implication being that the only girls worth having are the ones you have to buy?


----------



## musicftw07

wild jade said:


> Andy1001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This should throw the cat amongst the pigeons.
> To the guys who expect or insist that their dates pay for themselves or pay every second date can I ask you at what level of attractiveness are you dealing with.Any tens,nines even.I really want to know is there a level at which you think a woman shouldn't expect the man to pay for everything.
> Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> Your implication being that the only girls worth having are the ones you have to buy?
Click to expand...

My impression is that he was implying that guys who don't pay would change their tune if the woman was really hot. 

I think some might. But not all.


----------



## jld

musicftw07 said:


> It's good to have weeder criteria, no doubt about it. However, the criterion that a man always pays is going to weed out guys who don't fit your model. I make $65k/year, own my house, own my car outright, have great credit, raise my daughter on my own 50% of the time, and have a substantial savings.
> 
> I just don't believe your daughter is entitled to a man always paying for her simply because she has a vagina. Especially when she has the ability to pay for herself.


If she can get it, then I guess she is entitled to it.

I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this, music. There is no way that I am going to compromise on my standards for my daughter. I know her worth. 

And fortunately, so does she.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Andy1001 said:


> This should throw the cat amongst the pigeons.
> To the guys who expect or insist that their dates pay for themselves or pay every second date can I ask you at what level of attractiveness are you dealing with.Any tens,nines even.I really want to know is there a level at which you think a woman shouldn't expect the man to pay for everything.
> Anyone?


there are times when cyberspace and real life do not meet. This one of those occasions. I don't get the impression that of the single women that Ii know, that they only date guys who pay for everything. There is some navigation. indeed, when I was dating between marriages, I heard from women who told me not to expect a man to pay and women who were a little bit jealous that I could find dates who did want to pay.

After looking at my total dating experience over the course of my life, I have tried to identify some of the tricks of the trade, for example

1. Trying to get a woman to pay for a few things because he "forgot to go to the cash machine."

2. A guy who unbundles the activities of the evening as a way to get the women to pay for some of it: go one place for cocktails; another for dinner, another for dessert and so on ...... then try to get the woman to pay for one of more portions of the evening.

I used to try to be sensitive to a guy's needs when it came to money. But as I have said before, my experience is that that money that he saves because I paid is then used to take another woman out.

And I am aware of situations in which the guy pays but supposedly didn't particularly liked the woman anyway. What's up with that?

If I had to be single again, I would never go on a date with a guy without his paying at this point. If I have to pay formyself, I'll go out with my friends ....... and that does not include going out with a guy --that same guy, especially -- "as friends."


----------



## Andy1001

wild jade said:


> Your implication being that the only girls worth having are the ones you have to buy?


By no means.
The point I wanted to try and get across is that extremely attractive people of both sexes are treated differently than mere mortals.You see it everywhere,guys tripping over themselves to hold a door for some gorgeous girl,stopping in traffic to let her cross the road.A really attractive woman gets used to being spoiled by men from a young age and if you ask her out you better know the rules of this game.She may be a kind and generous person or a self entitled ***** but for you to get her attention sexually speaking you need to make her feel special.If she never had to pay for dates before why would she start with you.


----------



## wild jade

Andy1001 said:


> By no means.
> The point I wanted to try and get across is that extremely attractive people of both sexes are treated differently than mere mortals.You see it everywhere,guys tripping over themselves to hold a door for some gorgeous girl,stopping in traffic to let her cross the road.A really attractive woman gets used to being spoiled by men from a young age and if you ask her out you better know the rules of this game.She may be a kind and generous person or a self entitled ***** but for you to get her attention sexually speaking you need to make her feel special.If she never had to pay for dates before why would she start with you.


Amounts to the same thing, does it not?


----------



## musicftw07

jld said:


> musicftw07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's good to have weeder criteria, no doubt about it. However, the criterion that a man always pays is going to weed out guys who don't fit your model. I make $65k/year, own my house, own my car outright, have great credit, raise my daughter on my own 50% of the time, and have a substantial savings.
> 
> I just don't believe your daughter is entitled to a man always paying for her simply because she has a vagina. Especially when she has the ability to pay for herself.
> 
> 
> 
> If she can get it, then I guess she is entitled to it.
Click to expand...

By that logic, if I can get sex from your daughter, then that means I'm entitled to it. 

No double standards.


----------



## Andy1001

wild jade said:


> Amounts to the same thing, does it not?


I don't understand your premise.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Andy1001 said:


> By no means.
> The point I wanted to try and get across is that extremely attractive people of both sexes are treated differently than mere mortals.You see it everywhere,guys tripping over themselves to hold a door for some gorgeous girl,stopping in traffic to let her cross the road.*A really attractive woman gets used to being spoiled by men from a young age *and if you ask her out you better know the rules of this game.She may be a kind and generous person or a self entitled ***** but for you to get her attention sexually speaking you need to make her feel special.If she never had to pay for dates before why would she start with you.



Not always. Sometimes very attractive women grow up in families in which the parents are determined, either consciously or subconsciously, to cut their daughter down to size. Looking back on it, I really do think I was more attractive in my 20s than I was willing to believe. I was raised to be eager to please others and the one who makes the first move and so on. When I look at the really popular women in situations among both women and men, they are not always the most attractive. But what I did finally identify is that are a mix of confidence, receptiveness and detachment. They may be friendly but they were / are not eager to please. That leads me to believe that both man and woman like a challenge in their relationships at all levels.


----------



## Andy1001

wild jade said:


> Amounts to the same thing, does it not?


If I understand you correctly you are saying that by paying for a night out I am trying to "buy" the woman I'm with.From this I will infer that you mean try to have sex with her.The guy that brings you on a date and buys you a pretzel is also trying to have sex with YOU,but either doesn't have the money to bring you for a meal or doesn't think you are worth it.Quid pro quo.


----------



## wild jade

NextTimeAround said:


> And I am aware of situations in which the guy pays but supposedly didn't particularly liked the woman anyway. What's up with that?
> 
> If I had to be single again, I would never go on a date with a guy without his paying at this point. If I have to pay formyself, I'll go out with my friends ....... and that does not include going out with a guy --that same guy, especially -- "as friends."


I've come to similar conclusions, but for different reasons. 

I've found that lots of guy will pay for some things even if they don't actually like you all that much -- as basically a way to buy his way into your bed. But his level of investment will be low. These guys will mostly treat you poorly if you do anything more with them than letting them buy you a few drinks. 

Frankly, I'd rather not play this game at all, and so hope to never have to date again. But for those very beginning days, I wouldn't bother with any guy that won't demonstrate investment at the outset -- as it will inevitably end poorly for me. For the longer term relationships, it's easier, as I just think that both partners need to share the advantages and the costs. 

(And by investment, I don't mean necessarily the amount of dollars, but the relative sacrifice of time, energy, and purchasing power.)


----------



## musicftw07

NextTimeAround said:


> Andy1001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This should throw the cat amongst the pigeons.
> To the guys who expect or insist that their dates pay for themselves or pay every second date can I ask you at what level of attractiveness are you dealing with.Any tens,nines even.I really want to know is there a level at which you think a woman shouldn't expect the man to pay for everything.
> Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> I used to try to be sensitive to a guy's needs when it came to money. But as I have said before, my experience is that that money that he saves because I paid is then used to take another woman out.
Click to expand...

So? It's his money. What he does with it is his business. 

If both of you haven't agreed to exclusivity, then he's absolutely within his rights to spend *his* money on dates with other women. 



> If I had to be single again, I would never go on a date with a guy without his paying at this point. If I have to pay for myself, I'll go out with my friends ....... and that does not include going out with a guy --that same guy, especially -- "as friends."


If I had to be single again, I would never date anyone who wasn't cool with going dutch.


----------



## wild jade

Andy1001 said:


> If I understand you correctly you are saying that by paying for a night out I am trying to "buy" the woman I'm with.From this I will infer that you mean try to have sex with her.The guy that brings you on a date and buys you a pretzel is also trying to have sex with YOU,but either doesn't have the money to bring you for a meal or doesn't think you are worth it.Quid pro quo.


No, you seem to be saying that the women worth having are those that are entitled to have everything bought for them. Only those "lesser" women, those not worth having, can be coaxed into contributing.

And so guys that want women worth having better be prepared to pay. Through the nose.

Have I misunderstood?


----------



## Deejo

Context is everything.

I dated A LOT just a few short years ago.

I paid. 

My opinion is, that if you are older than 40, and you are calling the shots on where and when a date takes place ... then you pay. It's simple.

The other factor is attraction. A woman will offer to pay as a measure to manage or control the dating transaction ... or because she's very attracted to, and comfortable with her date.

I had a number of women offer to split or pay for a date ... or straight up have the check delivered to them. I would always look them in the eye and say, "I'm happy to take the check, are you sure you want to do that?"

And if she said, yes ... I let her.

To many women, the act is empowering. It makes a statement about them, what they want ... and can do as well. It's an act of independence and a statement that she's absolutely capable of taking care of herself ... and at her discretion, me too.
I notably had a date with a woman (successful business owner) and she picked up a $300.00 tab. She paid the bill behind my back. I asked for the check and the waitress said it had already been taken care of. That was something I would often do. I thought it was a ballsy move on her part. We had a blast. Dated for a few months before deciding to part ways.

For the younger set ... they have a completely different dynamic, which I can't claim to understand. I do feel comfortable stating however, that the overall expectation that a man ALWAYS pays, has gone the way of the dodo.


----------



## musicftw07

wild jade said:


> Andy1001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I understand you correctly you are saying that by paying for a night out I am trying to "buy" the woman I'm with.From this I will infer that you mean try to have sex with her.The guy that brings you on a date and buys you a pretzel is also trying to have sex with YOU,but either doesn't have the money to bring you for a meal or doesn't think you are worth it.Quid pro quo.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you seem to be saying that the women worth having are those that are entitled to have everything bought for them.
> 
> And so guys that want women worth having better be prepared to pay. Through the nose.
> 
> Have I misunderstood?
Click to expand...

Frankly, this is the impression I'm getting from both jld and NTA.


----------



## NextTimeAround

> (And by investment, I don't mean necessarily the amount of dollars, but the relative sacrifice of time, energy, and purchasing power.)


That's what I mean as well when I talk about investing in a relationship.

Time is particularly valuable as you can't get that back.


----------



## jld

NextTimeAround said:


> there are times when cyberspace and real life do not meet. This one of those occasions. I don't get the impression that of the single women that Ii know, that they only date guys who pay for everything. There is some navigation. indeed, when I was dating between marriages, I heard from women who told me not to expect a man to pay and women who were a little bit jealous that I could find dates who did want to pay.
> 
> After looking at my total dating experience over the course of my life, I have tried to identify some of the tricks of the trade, for example
> 
> 1. Trying to get a woman to pay for a few things because he "forgot to go to the cash machine."
> 
> 2. A guy who unbundles the activities of the evening as a way to get the women to pay for some of it: go one place for cocktails; another for dinner, another for dessert and so on ...... then try to get the woman to pay for one of more portions of the evening.
> 
> I used to try to be sensitive to a guy's needs when it came to money. But as I have said before, my experience is that that money that he saves because I paid is then used to take another woman out.
> 
> And I am aware of situations in which the guy pays but supposedly didn't particularly liked the woman anyway. What's up with that?
> 
> If I had to be single again, I would never go on a date with a guy without his paying at this point. If I have to pay formyself, I'll go out with my friends ....... and that does not include going out with a guy --that same guy, especially -- "as friends."


Wow, that is appalling, that those men would do that.

And you have certainly reached a wise conclusion.


----------



## NextTimeAround

musicftw07 said:


> *So? It's his money. What he does with it is his business.
> 
> If both of you haven't agreed to exclusivity, then he's absolutely within his rights to spend *his* money on dates with other women.
> *
> 
> 
> If I had to be single again, I would never date anyone who wasn't cool with going dutch.


This is true. But he is making a statement as to what he values when he decides how he is going to allocate his funds. 

My thought is that if I help to pay, we could see each other more often or not have to be price sensitive as to what we choose to do. However, if that is not priority for him, then I should move on.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> If she never had to pay for dates before why would she start with you.


This.


----------



## Bananapeel

Paying for dates isn't at all about trying to buy sex, it's about taking charge and taking care of the other person. From my perspective we all have very busy lives full of commitments and stresses, and dating should be a reprieve from them. When I date I like to usually be the one to plan the evening, choose the venue, and cover the cost, this way the woman gets to just go out and relax, enjoy herself, and appreciate being taken care of. This is a way for her to shed life's normal dynamic where she's taking care of others (work/kids/whatever) and lets her feel appreciated. The way she "pays" her part of the evening is just by relaxing and being good company, and I do my best to setup the situation so that it is easy for her. Her taking on the traditional female role is part of this scenario, and it works great. If she offers to occasionally take me out, well that is a nice gesture. I also don't personally value the financial cost of paying for the date very highly because I have enough money that it's really no big deal, so I never figure she "owes" me sex or anything other than pleasant company. I take charge on cheap dates too, such as hiking, evenings at home, etc. since it fits my personality.


----------



## musicftw07

NextTimeAround said:


> musicftw07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So? It's his money. What he does with it is his business.
> 
> If both of you haven't agreed to exclusivity, then he's absolutely within his rights to spend *his* money on dates with other women.
> *
> 
> 
> If I had to be single again, I would never date anyone who wasn't cool with going dutch.
> 
> 
> 
> This is true. But he is making a statement as to what he values when he decides how he is going to allocate his funds.
> 
> My thought is that if I help to pay, we could see each other more often or not have to be price sensitive as to what we choose to do. However, if that is not priority for him, then I should move on.
Click to expand...

Good points. However, here's a male perspective: I can't determine if a woman is worth my time and money based on one date alone. She has to demonstrate she's worthy of those things. And that takes time. 

I'm willing to invest time, but until she proves worthy of my affections, I'm withholding my hard earned cash. 

If you help pay, then there's no issue.


----------



## musicftw07

jld said:


> Andy1001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If she never had to pay for dates before why would she start with you.
> 
> 
> 
> This.
Click to expand...

Because I have higher standards. No skin off my back if she doesn't meet them. That means I didn't waste my time and money on someone unworthy.


----------



## NextTimeAround

musicftw07 said:


> Good points. However, here's a male perspective: I can't determine if a woman is worth my time and money based on one date alone. She has to demonstrate she's worthy of those things. And that takes time.
> 
> I'm willing to invest time, but until she proves worthy of my affections, I'm withholding my hard earned cash.
> 
> 
> If you help pay, then there's no issue.


What you wrote, in a vacuum, makes sense. But during the courtship with my husband, I know that he was paying for the times that he saw his "special friend." Someone whom he knew longer than he knew me -- by 3 months and had dated. Knew that she was still looking and having sex with at lest one other guy (I saw the messaging)

So why is he happy to pay 100% for her, topping up taxi fare and all when he knew all those things about her....... but doing a robbing Peter to pay Paul on me.

What's the best way to avoid this scenario?

And I bet that happens pretty often. We'll just never be that privy to what a guy is doing when you're not around .... and sometimes when you are around since these days people will text other people even while they are on a date.


----------



## EllisRedding

Andy1001 said:


> By no means.
> The point I wanted to try and get across is that extremely attractive people of both sexes are treated differently than mere mortals.You see it everywhere,guys tripping over themselves to hold a door for some gorgeous girl,stopping in traffic to let her cross the road.A really attractive woman gets used to being spoiled by men from a young age and if you ask her out you better know the rules of this game.She may be a kind and generous person or a self entitled ***** but for you to get her attention sexually speaking you need to make her feel special.If she never had to pay for dates before why would she start with you.


I do get why, in your example, someone who has always had her way paid for her would expect such. However, that doesn't mean she gets her way and if you don't play by her rules you aren't a "gentleman". Honestly, anyone who sees their own self worth as that high, I would gladly let the next guy get stuck dealing with her crap :grin2:


----------



## NextTimeAround

EllisRedding said:


> I do get why, in your example, someone who has always had her way paid for her would expect such. However, that doesn't mean she gets her way and if you don't play by her rules you aren't a "gentleman". Honestly, anyone who sees their own self worth as that high, I would gladly let the next guy get stuck dealing with her crap :grin2:


ok, so what do you do with the guys that call you a cheap date when you do help out? And sometimes they won't say it to your face.


----------



## EllisRedding

NextTimeAround said:


> ok, so what do you do with the guys that call you a cheap date when you do help out? And sometimes they won't say it to your face.


Well, first off, I have never had a guy call me a cheap date (just look at how I rock those shorts in my avatar) :grin2:

So if they want to resort to name calling so be it, their true colors show. Who cares what they think, just move on and don't let guys like that dictate how you go about things.


----------



## NextTimeAround

EllisRedding said:


> Well, first off, I have never had a guy call me a cheap date (just look at how I rock those shorts in my avatar) :grin2:
> 
> So if they want to resort to name calling so be it, their true colors show. Who cares what they think, just move on and don't let guys like that dictate how you go about things.


Just like, if it takes a guy a few months -- a few thousand dollars -- to realize that he means nothing more than a meal ticket to some woman......... oh, yes, always so easy to walk away from these things.


----------



## Andy1001

wild jade said:


> No, you seem to be saying that the women worth having are those that are entitled to have everything bought for them. Only those "lesser" women, those not worth having, can be coaxed into contributing.
> 
> And so guys that want women worth having better be prepared to pay. Through the nose.
> 
> Have I misunderstood?


I think I know myself what I am saying/asking.I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or just don't get what I am asking.
I'll try it this way if it makes more sense.
To all the guys on this thread who say they won't pay for dates unless their partner contributes answer this.Pick your favourite model,actress,sportswoman,whatever.If you happen to meet her while walking home and you get chatting and you ask her out and she agrees would you expect her to go Dutch.If you answer that of course you wouldn't expect her to pay then you are mistreating the women that you do expect to pay.
That is what I am asking.


----------



## musicftw07

NextTimeAround said:


> musicftw07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good points. However, here's a male perspective: I can't determine if a woman is worth my time and money based on one date alone. She has to demonstrate she's worthy of those things. And that takes time.
> 
> I'm willing to invest time, but until she proves worthy of my affections, I'm withholding my hard earned cash.
> 
> 
> If you help pay, then there's no issue.
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote, in a vacuum, makes sense. But during the courtship with my husband, I know that he was paying for the times that he saw his "special friend." Someone whom he knew longer than he knew me -- by 3 months and had dated. Knew that she was still looking and having sex with at lest one other guy (I saw the messaging)
> 
> So why is he happy to pay 100% for her, topping up taxi fare and all when he knew all those things about her....... but doing a robbing Peter to pay Paul on me.
> 
> What's the best way to avoid this scenario?
> 
> And I bet that happens pretty often. We'll just never be that privy to what a guy is doing when you're not around .... and sometimes when you are around since these days people will text other people even while they are on a date.
Click to expand...

You're still not getting it. He wasn't robbing you. He didn't take money from you and give it to this other woman. *He chose to spend his money as he saw fit.* There is a massive difference. It's like even during your courtship, you viewed his money as "yours".

It's his money. How he spends it is his business. 

I can't answer how to avoid it, nor can I answer why he chose to spend his money on a different woman. That'd be like me asking you to avoid being cheated on because of my experiences with my XWW. 

What I can say is that all relationships come with a degree of risk. We can mitigate as much as we can, but we can never get rid of it all. And demanding that honest, hard-working guys like me pay *your* way doesn't help. It only makes it worse, because it drives men like me away. 

Sounding like an entitled brat doesn't give relationship-minded men good vibes. Look at it from our perspective: if you're this demanding right out the gate, what will it be like if we live together? Get married? Comingle funds? Have children? I have two words: Living hell.

This is why I run from woman who feel entitled to *my* money. 

I never multi-dated, so your assertion that it happens pretty often is something I can't agree with. I'm sure it does happen, but not every guy fits that mold.

And anyone who is texting during a date (unless it's their child's babysitter) doesn't deserve another one.


----------



## NextTimeAround

andy1001 said:


> i think i know myself what i am saying/asking.i don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or just don't get what i am asking.
> I'll try it this way if it makes more sense.
> To all the guys on this thread who say they won't pay for dates unless their partner contributes answer this.pick your favourite model,actress,sportswoman,whatever.if you happen to meet her while walking home and you get chatting and you ask her out and she agrees would you expect her to go dutch.if you answer that of course you wouldn't expect her to pay then you are mistreating the women that you do expect to pay.
> That is what i am asking.



+5,000


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I do get why, in your example, someone who has always had her way paid for her would expect such. However, that doesn't mean she gets her way and if you don't play by her rules you aren't a "gentleman". Honestly, anyone who sees their own self worth as that high, I would gladly let the next guy get stuck dealing with her crap :grin2:


Some women truly are worth it. And they know it, because they know the kind of men they attract.

If anything, I think most women would do well to raise their expectations. _Mejor sola que mal acompanada. _


----------



## Bananapeel

musicftw07 said:


> Good points. However, here's a male perspective: I can't determine if a woman is worth my time and money based on one date alone. She has to demonstrate she's worthy of those things. And that takes time.
> 
> I'm willing to invest time, but until she proves worthy of my affections, I'm withholding my hard earned cash.
> 
> If you help pay, then there's no issue.


How much do you spend on dates where the money is such a big deal? Don't you get some enjoyment/value out of taking a woman out that supersedes part of the expense?


----------



## EllisRedding

NextTimeAround said:


> Just like, if it takes a guy a few months -- a few thousand dollars -- to realize that he means nothing more than a meal ticket to some woman......... oh, yes, always so easy to walk away from these things.


If a guy is naive enough to drop thousands of dollars and takes him months to realize he is nothing more than a meal ticket, that is on him, and you hope he learns something from it going forward.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Some women truly are worth it. And they know it, because they know the kind of men they attract.
> 
> If anything, I think most women would do well to raise their expectations. _Mejor sola que mal acompanada. _


So you are basically placing a price tag on a woman lol. Maybe the easiest way, just throw them in the Sunday paper with the advertisements so it is out in the open exactly what their worth is (or maybe we see that already in Craigslist :grin2: )


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> So you are basically placing a price tag on a woman lol. Maybe the easiest way, just throw them in the Sunday paper with the advertisements so it is out in the open exactly what their worth is (or maybe we see that already in Craigslist :grin2: )


What do you think arranged marriage is?

And there is a lot of casual "arranging" right here in America. Water seeks its own level.


----------



## NextTimeAround

musicftw07 said:


> You're still not getting it. He wasn't robbing you. He didn't take money from you and give it to this other woman. *He chose to spend his money as he saw fit.* There is a massive difference. It's like even during your courtship, you viewed his money as "yours".
> 
> It's his money. How he spends it is his business.
> 
> I can't answer how to avoid it, nor can I answer why he chose to spend his money on a different woman. That'd be like me asking you to avoid being cheated on because of my experiences with my XWW.
> 
> What I can say is that all relationships come with a degree of risk. We can mitigate as much as we can, but we can never get rid of it all. And demanding that honest, hard-working guys like me pay *your* way doesn't help. It only makes it worse, because it drives men like me away.
> 
> Sounding like an entitled brat doesn't give relationship-minded men good vibes. Look at it from our perspective: if you're this demanding right out the gate, what will it be like if we live together? Get married? Comingle funds? Have children? I have two words: Living hell.
> 
> This is why I run from woman who feel entitled to *my* money.
> 
> I never multi-dated, so your assertion that it happens pretty often is something I can't agree with. I'm sure it does happen, but not every guy fits that mold.
> 
> And anyone who is texting during a date (unless it's their child's babysitter) doesn't deserve another one.


the irony is that when I learned this, we had a discussion and I told him that I would be honored to be his "just a friend" friend as well since she got better treatment than what he was calling the girlfriend. Moreover, I like her, would have th chance of finding a boyfriend after well and not someone I had to share. 

so this is where you and I part ways. I think some people will do anything, will try anything on until they are called on it. So guys who talk in the abstract about ideal things like having respect for a woman who has sex on the fist date; who initiates dates and contact; who pays for half the dates and so on........ I know that that mythical she only exists in the guy's mind. Most men will view that woman as desperate and only use her until they find someone better.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> What do you think arranged marriage is?
> 
> And there is a lot of casual "arranging" right here in America. Water seeks its own level.


I have no idea where you are going with this one jld lol. I doubt one would compare the typical "arranged marriage" that you commonly hear about with this casual "arranging" you are seeing in America...


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I have no idea where you are going with this one jld lol. I doubt one would compare the typical "arranged marriage" that you commonly hear about with this casual "arranging" you are seeing in America...


People generally marry people a lot like themselves, Ellis. They feel comfortable together.


----------



## musicftw07

Bananapeel said:


> musicftw07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good points. However, here's a male perspective: I can't determine if a woman is worth my time and money based on one date alone. She has to demonstrate she's worthy of those things. And that takes time.
> 
> I'm willing to invest time, but until she proves worthy of my affections, I'm withholding my hard earned cash.
> 
> If you help pay, then there's no issue.
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you spend on dates where the money is such a big deal? Don't you get some enjoyment/value out of taking a woman out that supersedes part of the expense?
Click to expand...

It's not just quantity of money spent, it's also volume of dates.

And after a ton of really crappy dates with women who had nothing to offer except the spawn of some loser, no. I got no enjoyment for taking them out. All I was out was time and money. 

Contrary to popular female belief, your presence isn't enough to offset the cost of time and money spent on dating. You get a free meal. I get a bill. 

No thanks. Not worth it.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> People generally marry people a lot like themselves, Ellis. They feel comfortable together.


Um, yeah, no kidding. However, you keep wanting to attach a monetary value to a woman's worth, which has nothing to do with the statement above, unless they find comfort mostly in money ...


----------



## musicftw07

NextTimeAround said:


> musicftw07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still not getting it. He wasn't robbing you. He didn't take money from you and give it to this other woman. *He chose to spend his money as he saw fit.* There is a massive difference. It's like even during your courtship, you viewed his money as "yours".
> 
> It's his money. How he spends it is his business.
> 
> I can't answer how to avoid it, nor can I answer why he chose to spend his money on a different woman. That'd be like me asking you to avoid being cheated on because of my experiences with my XWW.
> 
> What I can say is that all relationships come with a degree of risk. We can mitigate as much as we can, but we can never get rid of it all. And demanding that honest, hard-working guys like me pay *your* way doesn't help. It only makes it worse, because it drives men like me away.
> 
> Sounding like an entitled brat doesn't give relationship-minded men good vibes. Look at it from our perspective: if you're this demanding right out the gate, what will it be like if we live together? Get married? Comingle funds? Have children? I have two words: Living hell.
> 
> This is why I run from woman who feel entitled to *my* money.
> 
> I never multi-dated, so your assertion that it happens pretty often is something I can't agree with. I'm sure it does happen, but not every guy fits that mold.
> 
> And anyone who is texting during a date (unless it's their child's babysitter) doesn't deserve another one.
> 
> 
> 
> the irony is that when I learned this, we had a discussion and I told him that I would be honored to be his "just a friend" friend as well since she got better treatment than what he was calling the girlfriend. Moreover, I like her, would have th chance of finding a boyfriend after well and not someone I had to share.
> 
> so this is where you and I part ways. I think some people will do anything, will try anything on until they are called on it. So guys who talk in the abstract about ideal things like having respect for a woman who has sex on the fist date; who initiates dates and contact; who pays for half the dates and so on........ I know that that mythical she only exists in the guy's mind. Most men will view that woman as desperate and only use her until they find someone better.
Click to expand...

Absolutely false. My girlfriend is an equal contributor to our relationship. And I'm going to wife the hell out of her someday.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Um, yeah, no kidding. However, you keep wanting to attach a monetary value to a woman's worth, which has nothing to do with the statement above, unless they find comfort mostly in money ...


For a young woman who may want to have children, yes, it makes a lot of sense to look at his earning potential. More than one woman who thought she wanted to work full time all her life has had second thoughts once the baby was born.

My daughter told me she will not consider anyone making less than she is, and I think she is right. Not that money is the only important thing, but it is important. 

_There is no reason in the world for a bright, promising young woman to settle!_


----------



## lovelygirl

EllisRedding said:


> I think it is generational as many more women now are working full time, making good money, etc... vs in the past. The problem, and if you look at your post, you somehow translate this into people saying a woman who accepts carrying their husbands financially and otherwise, which is furthest from what people here have been saying.
> 
> As well, it is about expectations/responsibilities of both men and women, not expectation of one vs responsibility of the other.


Just because women nowadays make money, are independent and able to pay for their own things, doesn't mean chivalry should be out the door.
Just because women are independent today do you expect them to open the door for the man? To pull the chair for him?


----------



## jld

lovelygirl said:


> Just because women nowadays make money, are independent and able to pay for their own things, doesn't mean chivalry should be out the door.
> Just because women are independent today do you expect them to open the door for the man? To pull the chair for him?


Who knows, that might be the next thing coming . . .


----------



## Wolf1974

wild jade said:


> I agree with this. Money isn't important, and definitely for LTR there will always be give and take.
> 
> To my mind, if a guy has a truckload of money, it means nothing if he wines and dines you. It doesn't actually cost him anything. If he doesn't have that money, just buying me a pretzel from a sidewalk vendor means so much more in terms of what he's willing to share. And that is way way more important than how many material possessions he might have.


That's the attitude I would definitely date. Not looking to be a ladies ATM :grin2:


----------



## EllisRedding

lovelygirl said:


> Just because women nowadays make money, are independent and able to pay for their own things, doesn't mean chivalry should be out the door.
> Just because women are independent today do you expect them to open the door for the man? To pull the chair for him?


If you have read my other posts I have clearly stated that I still do go by more of the old fashioned approach. 

However, there is a bit of a contradiction when you have women talking about their independence and being viewed as equals, but then expecting special treatment. My point is just with things nowadays, there are conflicting messages out there for younger generations to wade through

Also, let's not forget the women who actually get pissed at a guy for daring to hold a door open, pull out a chair, etc...


----------



## Andy1001

musicftw07 said:


> It's not just quantity of money spent, it's also volume of dates.
> 
> And after a ton of really crappy dates with women who had nothing to offer except the spawn of some loser, no. I got no enjoyment for taking them out. All I was out was time and money.
> 
> Contrary to popular female belief, your presence isn't enough to offset the cost of time and money spent on dating. You get a free meal. I get a bill.
> 
> No thanks. Not worth it.


Have you ever had a date with a really beautiful woman.I'm not just talking about physically,but a really kind hearted,beautiful emphatic woman.Now please don't tell me you consider your partner beautiful,that is not what I mean.I am taking about a drop dead gorgeous,stop the traffic woman.When you walk into a restaurant with someone like this the last thing that should be worrying you is who is going to pay.


----------



## Andy1001

Wolf1974 said:


> That's the attitude I would definitely date. Not looking to be a ladies ATM :grin2:


But the guy buying the pretzel and the guy buying the wine are both after the same outcome,it's just one has money and the other doesn't.If two men want to go fishing and one has a Ferrari and one has a bicycle once their at the river it doesn't matter to the fish how they got there.


----------



## lovelygirl

NextTimeAround said:


> If I had to be single again, I would never go on a date with a guy without his paying at this point. If I have to pay formyself, I'll go out with my friends ....... and that does not include going out with a guy --that same guy, especially -- "as friends."


Ditto.

It would lower my attraction for him as he's not able enough to be a gentleman. It's not about the money, as I said, it's about his behavior and attraction for me.


----------



## Wolf1974

NextTimeAround said:


> What you wrote, in a vacuum, makes sense. But during the courtship with my husband, I know that he was paying for the times that he saw his "special friend." Someone whom he knew longer than he knew me -- by 3 months and had dated. Knew that she was still looking and having sex with at lest one other guy (I saw the messaging)
> 
> So why is he happy to pay 100% for her, topping up taxi fare and all when he knew all those things about her....... but doing a robbing Peter to pay Paul on me.
> 
> *Wahat's the best way to avoid this scenario?*
> 
> And I bet that happens pretty often. We'll just never be that privy to what a guy is doing when you're not around .... and sometimes when you are around since these days people will text other people even while they are on a date.


You do the same things us men have to do, go slow, keep expectations low and don't invest more than you are willing to go before you know the other person is interested. In the beginning of dating when I was paying for everything it yielded me far less results than going slow, cheap or free dates, and just trying to get to know one another.

What your concerns are about being taken advantage of is the same thing we are trying to avoid.


----------



## Wolf1974

Andy1001 said:


> I think I know myself what I am saying/asking.I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or just don't get what I am asking.
> I'll try it this way if it makes more sense.
> To all the guys on this thread who say they won't pay for dates unless their partner contributes answer this.Pick your favourite model,actress,sportswoman,whatever.If you happen to meet her while walking home and you get chatting and you ask her out and she agrees would you expect her to go Dutch.If you answer that of course you wouldn't expect her to pay then you are mistreating the women that you do expect to pay.
> That is what I am asking.


I certainly would. Wouldn't change a thing for me I would ask if she wants to get a drink or a coffee not a meal. 

So let me return a question to you in kind. So this meet of a famous actress turns into a full blown relationship we can assume she makes more than you. Her lifestyle is probably one of meals, cars, houses, vacations of extreme expense. So are you unwilling to allow her to take you to those places even though you could never afford them....if so that relationship isn't lasting very long


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> Have you ever had a date with a really beautiful woman.I'm not just talking about physically,but a really kind hearted,beautiful emphatic woman.Now please don't tell me you consider your partner beautiful,that is not what I mean.I am taking about a drop dead gorgeous,stop the traffic woman.When you walk into a restaurant with someone like this the last thing that should be worrying you is who is going to pay.


Andy, music is making $65k a year, with a daughter to support. It would not be prudent for him to not think very carefully about how he spends his money.

The whole thing about the man paying does not mean he needs to spend a lot of money. It's really more about his willingness to take responsibility for her comfort, and make her a priority, as Bananapeel said. 

Because if he is not going to do that while he is dating her, it is unlikely he's going to do it afterwards.


----------



## jld

lovelygirl said:


> Ditto.
> 
> It would lower my attraction for him as he's not able enough to be a gentleman. It's not about the money, as I said, it's about his behavior and attraction for me.


Stick to your expectations, lovelygirl. It is not worth compromising your deepest values. You will both just end up disappointed.


----------



## Andy1001

Wolf1974 said:


> I certainly would. Wouldn't change a thing for me I would ask if she wants to get a drink or a coffee not a meal.
> 
> So let me return a question to you in kind. So this meet of a famous actress turns into a full blown relationship we can assume she makes more than you. Her lifestyle is probably one of meals, cars, houses, vacations of extreme expense. So are you unwilling to allow her to take you to those places even though you could never afford them....if so that relationship isn't lasting very long


You picked the wrong guy to ask this question to.lol.


----------



## Wolf1974

Andy1001 said:


> But the guy buying the pretzel and the guy buying the wine are both after the same outcome,it's just one has money and the other doesn't.If two men want to go fishing and one has a Ferrari and one has a bicycle once their at the river it doesn't matter to the fish how they got there.


Disagree. One is spending to impress the other isn't. At the end of the day doesn't matter which vehicle got them there or the expense of the fishing pole but the ability of the fisherman to fish.

I won't endeavor to impress a woman with money because that's not going to ever be the driving force of my life


----------



## SadSamIAm

Andy1001 said:


> But the guy buying the pretzel and the guy buying the wine are both after the same outcome,it's just one has money and the other doesn't.If two men want to go fishing and one has a Ferrari and one has a bicycle once their at the river it doesn't matter to the fish how they got there.


We are not talking about catching something killing it. If you are getting caught to be killed then it doesn't matter who catches you. If you are getting caught to live a life, it most certainly does.

Let's say two men want to catch a GIRL. One drives up in a Ferrari. The other on a bicycle. They both catch a girl and take her home. The Ferrari guy takes her to his 3500 ft2 mansion with a pool. The bicycle guy takes his date to his parents basement. Does it matter now?


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> You picked the wrong guy to ask this question to.lol.


Pick an area where you would feel outclassed. I think that was the point of the question, anyway.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> Andy, music is making $65k a year, with a daughter to support. It would not be prudent for him to not think very carefully about how he spends his money.
> 
> The whole thing about the man paying does not mean he needs to spend a lot of money. It's really more about his willingness to take responsibility for her comfort, and make her a priority, as Bananapeel said.
> 
> Because if he is not going to do that while he is dating her, it is unlikely he's going to do it afterwards.


Well it depends on what you call a lot of money.Even two hundred bucks will pay for a decent restaurant,it doesn't have to be Michelin starred.


----------



## Wolf1974

Andy1001 said:


> You picked the wrong guy to ask this question to.lol.


Well you posed the original question so I thought it fair.

Honestly unless the actress was extremely humble, which I doubt possible, I wouldn't be interested in her long term. That lifestyle is just something I wouldn't want to have myself or my children exposed to.


----------



## Andy1001

Wolf1974 said:


> Well you posed the original question so I thought it fair.
> 
> Honestly unless the actress was extremely humble, which I doubt possible, I wouldn't be interested in her long term. That lifestyle is just something I wouldn't want to have myself or my children exposed to.


I was using the actress as an example,it could be any really beautiful woman you can think of.My point was really attractive women get treated differently,and that is inherently unfair to the less beautiful women.You must have seen it yourself,normally calm men getting flustered when a beautiful woman speaks to them.


----------



## lovelygirl

Bananapeel said:


> Paying for dates isn't at all about trying to buy sex, it's about taking charge and taking care of the other person. From my perspective we all have very busy lives full of commitments and stresses, and dating should be a reprieve from them. When I date I like to usually be the one to plan the evening, choose the venue, and cover the cost, this way the woman gets to just go out and relax, enjoy herself, and appreciate being taken care of. This is a way for her to shed life's normal dynamic where she's taking care of others (work/kids/whatever) and lets her feel appreciated. The way she "pays" her part of the evening is just by relaxing and being good company, and I do my best to setup the situation so that it is easy for her. Her taking on the traditional female role is part of this scenario, and it works great. If she offers to occasionally take me out, well that is a nice gesture. I also don't personally value the financial cost of paying for the date very highly because I have enough money that it's really no big deal, so I never figure she "owes" me sex or anything other than pleasant company. I take charge on cheap dates too, such as hiking, evenings at home, etc. since it fits my personality.


Love you how you think.

See, dating you makes a woman feel a real woman and it's not just about the money but it's about how you treat her and you want her to feel comfortable in your company and not worry about anything else. I love it when a man takes charge of the situation and doesn't let the woman worry or feel uncomfortable. 
Paying for the meal and/or taking in charge for the organization of the date it's about a man feeling confident. It simply turns me on.


----------



## lovelygirl

jld said:


> For a young woman who may want to have children, yes, it makes a lot of sense to look at his earning potential. More than one woman who thought she wanted to work full time all her life has had second thoughts once the baby was born.
> 
> My daughter told me she will not consider anyone making less than she is, and I think she is right. Not that money is the only important thing, but it is important.
> 
> _There is no reason in the world for a bright, promising young woman to settle!_


Sometimes it's not about who earns more, it's more about how he treats you. If he treats you right and respects you then you won't think of the fact that he earns less than you, cuz' you don't feel that difference when you're around him. At least he wouldn't allow it. 

So, I'd never say never to the fact that I might date a guy who earns less, as long as he treats me like a princess in every sense of the word.


----------



## jld

lovelygirl said:


> Love you how you think.
> 
> See, dating you makes a woman feel a real woman and it's not just about the money but it's about how you treat her and you want her to feel comfortable in your company and not worry about anything else. I love it when a man takes charge of the situation and doesn't let the woman worry or feel uncomfortable.
> Paying for the meal and/or taking in charge for the organization of the date it's about a man feeling confident. It simply turns me on.


Wait for a man like Bananapeel, lovelygirl. It will be worth it.


----------



## Wolf1974

Andy1001 said:


> I was using the actress as an example,it could be any really beautiful woman you can think of.My point was really attractive women get treated differently,and that is inherently unfair to the less beautiful women.You must have seen it yourself,normally calm men getting flustered when a beautiful woman speaks to them.


Well actually many attractive women report many problems dating. Always worried about being treated like an object. Not being treated seriously because of how she looks. Some complain that they never get asked out because guys are afraid of them...

But still, for me anyway, doesn't change anything. I still wouldn't try to buy their affections just not who I am. If that's how they want to be treated plenty of guys will second mortgage a house for them I suppose. But then that's a dynamic both of them will have to live with and fear. Her that her beauty will fade and him that if the money goes so will she.


----------



## jld

lovelygirl said:


> Sometimes it's not about who earns more, it's more about how he treats you. If he treats you right and respects you then you won't think of the fact that he earns less than you, cuz' you don't feel that difference when you're around him. At least he wouldn't allow it.
> 
> So, I'd never say never to the fact that I might date a guy who earns less, as long as he treats me like a princess in every sense of the word.


Yes, he would have to at least do that.


----------



## musicftw07

Andy1001 said:


> musicftw07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just quantity of money spent, it's also volume of dates.
> 
> And after a ton of really crappy dates with women who had nothing to offer except the spawn of some loser, no. I got no enjoyment for taking them out. All I was out was time and money.
> 
> Contrary to popular female belief, your presence isn't enough to offset the cost of time and money spent on dating. You get a free meal. I get a bill.
> 
> No thanks. Not worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever had a date with a really beautiful woman.I'm not just talking about physically,but a really kind hearted,beautiful emphatic woman.Now please don't tell me you consider your partner beautiful,that is not what I mean.I am taking about a drop dead gorgeous,stop the traffic woman.When you walk into a restaurant with someone like this the last thing that should be worrying you is who is going to pay.
Click to expand...

Considering my partner has stopped traffic, and everywhere we go she gets ogled, I'm going to go with her. She's tall, fit, and has ballet dancer's legs.

I'm not so shallow, or without a sufficient degree of self-control or self-respect, to fawn all over a beautiful woman. 

I'm not ruled by my penis, bro.


----------



## lovelygirl

EllisRedding said:


> Also, let's not forget the women who actually get pissed at a guy for daring to hold a door open, pull out a chair, etc...


I have never heard of such women before...and I can't reason why a woman would be mad a guy holding the door open for her...

There are exceptions to the rules of course, but exceptions are not taking into account most of the time.


----------



## Wolf1974

lovelygirl said:


> Love you how you think.
> 
> See, dating you makes a woman feel a real woman and it's not just about the money but it's about how you treat her and you want her to feel comfortable in your company and not worry about anything else. I love it when a man takes charge of the situation and doesn't let the woman worry or feel uncomfortable.
> Paying for the meal and/or taking in charge for the organization of the date it's about a man feeling confident. It simply turns me on.


My gf says the same thing even though I ask her to contribute. I am a very take charge type. :smile2:


----------



## lovelygirl

Wolf1974 said:


> You do the same things us men have to do, go slow, keep expectations low and don't invest more than you are willing to go before you know the other person is interested. In the beginning of dating when I was paying for everything it yielded me far less results than going slow, cheap or free dates, and just trying to get to know one another.
> 
> What your concerns are about being taken advantage of is the same thing we are trying to avoid.


It doesn't mean the dates have to be expensive and last for long. 

For example, the first few dates should be a drink OR a walk OR a cinema. Not all of them together. And I don't think they should last more than two hours. 

So, you get to pay but don't waste tons of money and time if the result is not what you expected.


----------



## Wolf1974

lovelygirl said:


> I have never heard of such women before...and I can't reason why a woman would be mad a guy holding the door open for her...
> 
> There are exceptions to the rules of course, but exceptions are not taking into account most of the time.


This happend to me. I pulled out a chair and a woman made a big scene. I left over it laughing. Can't make this stuff up lol


----------



## musicftw07

jld said:


> Andy1001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever had a date with a really beautiful woman.I'm not just talking about physically,but a really kind hearted,beautiful emphatic woman.Now please don't tell me you consider your partner beautiful,that is not what I mean.I am taking about a drop dead gorgeous,stop the traffic woman.When you walk into a restaurant with someone like this the last thing that should be worrying you is who is going to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> Andy, music is making $65k a year, with a daughter to support. It would not be prudent for him to not think very carefully about how he spends his money.
> 
> The whole thing about the man paying does not mean he needs to spend a lot of money. It's really more about his willingness to take responsibility for her comfort, and make her a priority, as Bananapeel said.
> 
> Because if he is not going to do that while he is dating her, it is unlikely he's going to do it afterwards.
Click to expand...

Thanks, jld. 

For the record, I do the vast majority of paying when my girlfriend and I go out. I have more disposable income than her, and I'd rather pay so we can have fun together than not go out at all. It's not the actual paying; it's the expectation that I whip out my wallet for everything with no reciprocity of any kind.

My gf reciprocates in many other ways. That girl can COOK! And I gladly accept her ways to reciprocate and show affection.


----------



## Wolf1974

lovelygirl said:


> It doesn't mean the dates have to be expensive and last for long.
> 
> For example, the first few dates should be a drink OR a walk OR a cinema. Not all of them together. And I don't think they should last more than two hours.
> 
> So, you get to pay but don't waste tons of money and time if the result is not what you expected.


And I do and have. But even in my now committed relationship my expectation is she contributes financially even if not equal.


----------



## lovelygirl

Wolf1974 said:


> My gf says the same thing even though I ask her to contribute. I am a very take charge type. :smile2:


If the guy is the "take charge" type, he doesn't even have to ask me to contribute. Knowing he's always ready to take charge with pleasure, would make me want to contribute EVEN MORE with the same pleasure.

But knowing a guy hardly wants to take charge, lowers the thrill of the relationship with him so I wouldn't be so eager to contribute towards him/us. Sometimes, it's about who you're dealing with, although I try to keep my own standards and if the guy doesn't meet them, then I leave.


----------



## jld

lovelygirl said:


> I have never heard of such women before...and I can't reason why a woman would be mad a guy holding the door open for her...
> 
> There are exceptions to the rules of course, but exceptions are not taking into account most of the time.


You are European, correct? Feminism seems less militant there, has a softer edge.


----------



## NextTimeAround

jld said:


> For a young woman who may want to have children, yes, it makes a lot of sense to look at his earning potential. More than one woman who thought she wanted to work full time all her life has had second thoughts once the baby was born.
> 
> *My daughter told me she will not consider anyone making less than she is, and I think she is right. Not that money is the only important thing, but it is important.
> 
> *_There is no reason in the world for a bright, promising young woman to settle!_


Earning power can create issues. A man may not like the idea that his wife is capable of making more money than he can. This could have an affect when they need to decide who will be the SAHP.

My sister and a friend of hers, both medical doctors, therefore high earners like their erstwhile husbands, discovered that their wayward husbands had no qualms in reminding them to stay up to date with the household bills while they were siphoning funds off to finance their mistresses.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Wolf1974 said:


> I certainly would. Wouldn't change a thing for me I would ask if she wants to get a drink or a coffee not a meal.
> 
> So let me return a question to you in kind. So this meet of a famous actress turns into a full blown relationship we can assume she makes more than you. Her lifestyle is probably one of meals, cars, houses, vacations of extreme expense. So are you unwilling to allow her to take you to those places even though you could never afford them*....if so that relationship isn't lasting very long*


Tell us why......


----------



## Wolf1974

lovelygirl said:


> If the guy is the "take charge" type, he doesn't even have to ask me to contribute. Knowing he's always ready to take charge with pleasure, would make me want to contribute EVEN MORE with the same pleasure.
> 
> But knowing a guy hardly wants to take charge, lowers the thrill of the relationship with him so I wouldn't be so eager to contribute towards him/us. Sometimes, it's about who you're dealing with, although I try to keep my own standards and if the guy doesn't meet them, then I leave.


Maybe that's how my gf sees it. She knows I pay way more for us than she does. So when I say hey I got us this you take care of dinner before she is more than happy because she is safe and secure and glad to add to OUR experience. Makes sense to me


----------



## Wolf1974

NextTimeAround said:


> Tell us why......


Because according to some women here if you can't finance the lifestyle then your worth is nill. An average guy couldn't afford an actresses lifestyle without her helping. Hence the rub right.


----------



## Daisy12

Andy1001 said:


> I was using the actress as an example,it could be any really beautiful woman you can think of.My point was really attractive women get treated differently,and that is inherently unfair to the less beautiful women.You must have seen it yourself,normally calm men getting flustered when a beautiful woman speaks to them.


What you might see as a less beautiful girl might be the most beautiful girl in the world to some other guy. Attractiveness is objective as we all have our own tastes. 

True beauty is more than what is on the outside and if I was a 10 but today's standards, I would mostly denfitly think I was shallow to assume that a man has to pay my way because I'm attractive. As I would classify any man as shallow if he thought it was ok to make a woman pay for half the date solely bases on the reason that she was not a 10.

A true gentleman treats all woman the same, wether they are 9 or 99 or a 10 or a 2.


----------



## musicftw07

EllisRedding said:


> However, there is a bit of a contradiction when you have women talking about their independence and being viewed as equals, but then expecting special treatment. My point is just with things nowadays, there are conflicting messages out there for younger generations to wade through


THIS. 

Either you're independent or you're not. Either you're my equal or you're not. 

I refuse to play the "I'm equal but deserve special treatment" game.


----------



## NextTimeAround

jld said:


> Andy, music is making $65k a year, with a daughter to support. It would not be prudent for him to not think very carefully about how he spends his money.
> 
> The whole thing about the man paying does not mean he needs to spend a lot of money. *It's really more about his willingness to take responsibility for her comfort, and make her a priority, as Bananapeel said. *
> 
> Because if he is not going to do that while he is dating her, it is unlikely he's going to do it afterwards.


Making her a priority has, IMO, a lot of meanings.

My sister dated a guy for 6 months and then they moved in together. HE cried the blues about not having any money after paying his big expenses, mortgage, car note, you know.....

So my sister contributed to the cost of dating in addition to the household costs for living there.

Guess what? She found out that he was still paying for his ex girlfriend's utilities!!!!!

No children, no court orders...... ergo, no legitimate reason to do that. The ex gf lived with him during their relationship so the fact that he was paying her utilities would indeed be something that he started doing AFTER they broke up since there was really no direct debits service available back then.


----------



## lovelygirl

jld said:


> You are European, correct? Feminism seems less militant there, has a softer edge.


Yes, Albanian. Eastern European. 

We over here don't go Dutch on dates, although we might to go Dutch while hanging out with friends. 
But going Dutch on dates is seen as cheap and despicable.


----------



## jld

lovelygirl said:


> If the guy is the "take charge" type, he doesn't even have to ask me to contribute. *Knowing he's always ready to take charge with pleasure, would make me want to contribute EVEN MORE with the same pleasure.*
> 
> But knowing a guy hardly wants to take charge, lowers the thrill of the relationship with him so I wouldn't be so eager to contribute towards him/us. Sometimes, it's about who you're dealing with, although I try to keep my own standards and if the guy doesn't meet them, then I leave.


I would really be careful with this. Please let him pay for a long while before you do so enthusiastically.

Advice from Auntie jld, anyway.


----------



## lovelygirl

jld said:


> I would really be careful with this. Please let him pay for a long while before you do so enthusiastically.
> 
> Advice from Auntie jld, anyway.


Yes, you're right Auntie. That phrase was meant while already in an exclusive relationship/cohabitation/marriage. 

Not for dating. During this phase, I'd rather he pays most of the times.:smile2:


----------



## Wolf1974

NextTimeAround said:


> Making her a priority has, IMO, a lot of meanings.
> 
> My sister dated a guy for 6 months and then they moved in together. HE cried the blues about not having any money after paying his big expenses, mortgage, car note, you know.....
> 
> So my sister contributed to the cost of dating in addition to the household costs for living there.
> 
> Guess what? She found out that he was still paying for his ex girlfriend's utilities!!!!!
> 
> No children, no court orders...... ergo, no legitimate reason to do that. The ex gf lived with him during their relationship so the fact that he was paying her utilities would indeed be something that he started doing AFTER they broke up since there was really no direct debits service available back then.


You and your sister have definitely met some strange men lol. I have never paid for anything for my ex gf's or x wife. How completely weird :surprise:


----------



## Wolf1974

lovelygirl said:


> Yes, Albanian. Eastern European.
> 
> We over here don't go Dutch on dates, although we might to go Dutch while hanging out with friends.
> But going Dutch on dates is seen as cheap and despicable.


My personal experience with European women is they tend to not focus as much on things and are very greatful for things given. Big turn on :smile2:


----------



## NextTimeAround

Wolf1974 said:


> You and your sister have definitely met some strange men lol. I have never paid for anything for my ex gf's or x wife. How completely weird :surprise:


What I am writing about, I think is becoming more and more common.

I suspect that it's due to

1. The growth of OSFs which includes being friends with your ex.

2. While much is written about women in exclusive and regular dating relationships should pay / help pay for dates, no one has written guidelines for what men should do with their female friends. So it's easy to overcompensate.


----------



## Wolf1974

NextTimeAround said:


> What I am writing about, I think is becoming more and more common.
> 
> I suspect that it's due to
> 
> 1. The growth of OSFs which includes being friends with your ex.
> 
> 2. While much is written about women in exclusive and regular dating relationships should pay / help pay for dates, no one has written guidelines for what men should do with their female friends. So it's easy to overcompensate.


Well guess we will have to disagree on that it's becoming more common. I have never heard of men doing this not court ordered and then they come here to complain about it. Certainly wouldn't catch me doing it and we certainly aren't all like that. 

And I do the exact same with female friends as I do with male friends. I get this lunch you get the next one. I get this round you get the next one and so on. With friendships I expect 50-50. Don't think that should be different


----------



## WorkingWife

jld said:


> Three decades ago I asked a young man out. I am embarrassed to admit that, btw. Blushing as I write this. Ashamed of myself. How forward.
> 
> He would not let me pay.
> 
> I am 24 years past dating days. But if Dug died and I were single again . . . Yes, I would expect a man interested in me to do the inviting and pay for the evening. And I would not accept an invitation if I did not have sincere feelings for him in return. That is simple respect.
> 
> Just old-fashioned here, I guess.


I agree with you with the exception that if my H died and I was actively looking for someone to date, say on a dating site, I would look at the first date as more of an interview for both of us, and expect to pay half - and would want to keep it inexpensive/low key. 

After that though, it would be up to the man to pursue me if he was interested, and if he invited me out again, I would assume he would be paying.

If I invited him to something, I would assume I would be paying, though, as a woman, I would probably not invite him out unless we were an item. Or I had something I really wanted to do and wanted a plus +1. 

Once I was in a steady relationship I would like the man to pay for more than 50%, especially if he has a taste for expensive things that I would never spring for on my own. But I would not expect him to pay all the time, unless he was very wealthy and wanted to. But if our incomes were similar, I'd expect to pay some.

Of course this philosophy of being so willing to pay may be how I ended up in a relationship where I am the breadwinner (and I hate that). Back then I thought it was wrong and superficial to expect the guy to pay. If I'd held out for a man who was not willing to let a woman pay his way, I'd be in a much better financial/life position right now.


----------



## *Deidre*

If a guy asks, then he ''should'' pay, but once the relationship is established, it should be a reciprocal type of thing. But, my fiance still pays. lol


----------



## 269370

lovelygirl said:


> I friend of mine, 35 y.o. is single and hasn't been in a realtionship for 3 years now. During one of our discussions, she said "I don't need just a guy in my life... I need a man. But where are men today? To even think that they can't even pay you a dinner? _A real man wouldn't allow me to pay for the dinner, even if I insisted on doing so..._".
> 
> This got me thinking if men here agree with this saying or not.
> 
> Do you think you should pay most of the time or you dislike it when you're the one paying most of/all the time?
> Would you prefer she paid most of the time?
> or you think both partners should take turns?
> Is there any difference if you're at the early stages of dating/relationship ?
> 
> I will say my opinion later.


I have a huge problem letting ANYONE pay for ANYTHING. It is so bad that my wife forbids me to go anywhere with anyone. (I still go). Paying for females was always a given, date or no date (very sexist, I know) but I also always fight for bills with anyone else, even if it is a business dinner. I just physically cannot let anyone else pay for a bill. It's always been like this and I have no idea what to do about it. My mind tells me it's wrong but my hands always put that credit card down first.


----------



## jld

WorkingWife said:


> I agree with you with the exception that if my H died and I was actively looking for someone to date, say on a dating site, I would look at the first date as more of an interview for both of us, and expect to pay half - and would want to keep it inexpensive/low key.
> 
> After that though, it would be up to the man to pursue me if he was interested, and if he invited me out again, I would assume he would be paying.
> 
> If I invited him to something, I would assume I would be paying, though, as a woman, I would probably not invite him out unless we were an item. Or I had something I really wanted to do and wanted a plus +1.
> 
> Once I was in a steady relationship I would like the man to pay for more than 50%, especially if he has a taste for expensive things that I would never spring for on my own. But I would not expect him to pay all the time, unless he was very wealthy and wanted to. But if our incomes were similar, I'd expect to pay some.
> 
> *Of course this philosophy of being so willing to pay may be how I ended up in a relationship where I am the breadwinner (and I hate that). Back then I thought it was wrong and superficial to expect the guy to pay. If I'd held out for a man who was not willing to let a woman pay his way, I'd be in a much better financial/life position right now*


I think a lot of women have made this mistake, WW. An unexpected twisting of the intentions of feminism has at times resulted in women being even further enslaved. It is as though feminism is used against itself.

It just seems unwise to do too much for a man. 

Honestly, I am afraid it can ruin him.


----------



## jld

NextTimeAround said:


> Making her a priority has, IMO, a lot of meanings.
> 
> My sister dated a guy for 6 months and then they moved in together. HE cried the blues about not having any money after paying his big expenses, mortgage, car note, you know.....
> 
> So my sister contributed to the cost of dating in addition to the household costs for living there.
> 
> Guess what? She found out that he was still paying for his ex girlfriend's utilities!!!!!
> 
> No children, no court orders...... ergo, no legitimate reason to do that. The ex gf lived with him during their relationship so the fact that he was paying her utilities would indeed be something that he started doing AFTER they broke up since there was really no direct debits service available back then.


Wow. 

Your sister must have been _furious!_


----------



## 269370

PS: I also often make sure the bill never even appears on the table by paying for everything beforehand (you can often give restaurants your credit card no over the phone at the time of booking. Some have a policy not to accept to either hold on to a credit card or keep the card number in which case I try to do it while excusing myself to go to the "washroom"). 
Only twice in my life, it really misfired VERY badly. In Japan once, the host was so upset that he never spoke to me again and another time (this was with my parents in law and my wife, also in Asia, when I made sure the bill was paid for everyone), her father told me that i have no respect for the elders. I found that baffling at the time but I do understand it.
This whole social etiquette is so stressful...I think my wife is right, I should just stay at home.


----------



## Wolf1974

WorkingWife said:


> I agree with you with the exception that if my H died and I was actively looking for someone to date, say on a dating site, I would look at the first date as more of an interview for both of us, and expect to pay half - and would want to keep it inexpensive/low key.
> 
> After that though, it would be up to the man to pursue me if he was interested, and if he invited me out again, I would assume he would be paying.
> 
> If I invited him to something, I would assume I would be paying, though, as a woman, I would probably not invite him out unless we were an item. Or I had something I really wanted to do and wanted a plus +1.
> 
> Once I was in a steady relationship I would like the man to pay for more than 50%, especially if he has a taste for expensive things that I would never spring for on my own. But I would not expect him to pay all the time, unless he was very wealthy and wanted to. But if our incomes were similar, I'd expect to pay some.
> 
> Of course this philosophy of being so willing to pay may be how I ended up in a relationship where I am the breadwinner (and I hate that). Back then I thought it was wrong and superficial to expect the guy to pay. *If I'd held out for a man who was not willing to let a woman pay his way, I'd be in a much better financial/life position right now*.


Could also be in a relationship where you were Not valued as an equal either. Its truely a double edged sword


----------



## Wolf1974

inmyprime said:


> I have a huge problem letting ANYONE pay for ANYTHING. It is so bad that my wife forbids me to go anywhere with anyone. (I still go). Paying for females was always a given, date or no date (very sexist, I know) but I also always fight for bills with anyone else, even if it is a business dinner. I just physically cannot let anyone else pay for a bill. It's always been like this and I have no idea what to do about it. My mind tells me it's wrong but my hands always put that credit card down first.


Wish you lived closer we could be friends :grin2:


----------



## introvert

I have found myself involved in a "traditional" Butch/Femme relationship for the last year. Me being the femme. This is my very first experience of such a relationship.

Right off the bat, upon meeting my gf, she opened doors for me, covered the restaurant check (my birthday), and while walking, stayed on whatever side of my body would protect me from a freak traffic accident, LOL! I found it completely ****ing hot. Of course, at first, I kept messing it up, automatically reaching for the door, etc.

Fast forward to nearly a year later. She still holds doors open for me, opens my car door for me, pays for my coffee if we go to a coffee shop, etc. We don't go out to restaurants because I'm a fantastic cook and I love cooking for her. We choose a meal for me to prepare when she arrives on the weekend. She way out earns me, so I'm okay with her paying for things (I'm a cheap date). 

The attention she shows me is so flattering, I will never fall out of love with her. I have never been treated this well in my life, and she does reap the benefits of that, LOL. 

Maybe some women take that treatment for granted. I never will, however. And I love her like crazy because of how respectful she is to me. I do my best to please her in all areas.

My dear mother broke her hip three weeks ago, and while I was parking my car at the hospital she was at to bring her to the nursing home for rehab, I noticed a young couple getting into their car. New parents. The dad hopped into his side (driver's) and the new mom lugged the new baby in a car seat, put it into the back on her own, then opened her own door and got in. I was appalled, LOL. 

I love chivalry.


----------



## NextTimeAround

inmyprime said:


> I have a huge problem letting ANYONE pay for ANYTHING. It is so bad that my wife forbids me to go anywhere with anyone. (I still go). Paying for females was always a given, date or no date (very sexist, I know) but I also always fight for bills with anyone else, even if it is a business dinner. I just physically cannot let anyone else pay for a bill. It's always been like this and I have no idea what to do about it. My mind tells me it's wrong but my hands always put that credit card down first.


You need to watch this. It's not worth bankrupting your household just to have a go at impressing people who don't care and you will probably never see again.

Also, you can into some unpleasant situations being generous around people who don't reciprocate.

Once my exH and I got a groupd of friends and their partners together to go to a sports event. As my ex was a member of a club he could VIP tickets --to sit in the enclosure and have high tea in the afternoon. Everyone paid for their own ticket. Early in the day we were at the bar at 2 tables. My husband was the table with the females buying rounds and I was at the table with the males. It dawned on none of the men to offer me a drink while my exH was buying their partners drinks. My husband finally nudged one of the guys. So apparently he even decided that it was not a pretty sight.


----------



## Kivlor

lovelygirl said:


> Just because women nowadays make money, are independent and able to pay for their own things, doesn't mean chivalry should be out the door.
> Just because women are independent today do you expect them to open the door for the man? To pull the chair for him?



Somebody missed the feminist memo....

"Chivalry Must Die"

Never forget kiddos, chivalry, where men act like servants to women, and spend their hard earned resources courting their favor, isn't just putting women on a pedestal... "The woman may be on the pedestal, having doors opened, chairs pulled out, and meals paid for. But actually it is patriarchy that is asserting its power."


----------



## wild jade

Andy1001 said:


> I was using the actress as an example,it could be any really beautiful woman you can think of.My point was really attractive women get treated differently,and that is inherently unfair to the less beautiful women.You must have seen it yourself,normally calm men getting flustered when a beautiful woman speaks to them.


LOL. 

Believe it or not, some guys can actually see there's more to women than her looks. 

They are usually the ones worth dating, IMHO. As otherwise, you're just a trophy that they're showing off to their friends. Or anyone who will look.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I haven't read the whole thread but...

In my recent dating experiences, I have normally always split the bill or paid the whole bill on the first date, sometimes also on the 2nd date or even beyond. The reasons....

1. I think it is silly to "expect" men to pay for first dates so I'm showing men with my wallet that I feel this way. I also tell them those exact words if the opportunity comes up, such as when they say they are surprised that I am willing to pay the bill. Some men swipe the bill out of my hand and insist on paying, but I don't take it to mean they will always pay for every date.

2. I have plenty of disposable income for this type of entertainment and I like spending it however I want, which includes paying for first dates. 

3. I do not want a man to think I owe him any thing just because he has paid for a first date or subsequent dates. Granted, I have not encountered any men who think "that way" anyway in my dating life so it may be the least of my reasons for paying, but it is still there. 

4. I like to joke that they DO "owe me something" after I've paid the bill. (But only if they are cute and I'm interested in them  )

5. I sincerely enjoy "treating" people to things. A first date is one thing I can treat some people to, I also enjoy buying lunch for my friends. Some friends will refuse, but some of them are broke and don't refuse and are just eternally grateful. Again, I have disposable income for this, so with my friends who do not have that luxury, they are just glad to get to live my lifestyle with me sometimes when they couldn't have gone out with me if they had to foot their own bill (not meaning just lunch but also other outings, concerts, etc).

6. I've always found that things even out over time with my dates and then relationships, if it gets that far, and I'm happy with that. I do not want to always pay, but I'm happy to pay my share. Relationships and dating are expensive! There's no reason the man should have to cover all of that cost. Especially with some of the types of things I want to do (travel, expensive restaurants, dancing, art classes, etc), I wouldn't expect a man or anyone else to just constantly cover me on those things. I'm just happy if he can cover himself and still have plenty of money for other things.

7. Men don't tell you their emotions with money anyway. A man paying for my dates does not mean he is invested in me, likes me that much, or anything else really. It usually just means he is being a gentleman and following our cultural narrative. But men sometimes feel resentful that they inherited this particular narrative and then they still sometimes pay anyway...and that doesn't turn out well for me. I want to just take any potential resentment out of the picture.

8. I want any man I date to know I have my own money and am not after his.

9. I feel more free to order and do anything I want when I know I'm going to grab the check first.


----------



## Faithful Wife

As for the other things...opening doors, being a gentleman in general, putting me on the inside of the sidewalk furthest away from the road, handling interactions with other people to give me the best hassle free date experience, complimenting my attire for the date, and just generally acting like a great guy....this I have come to expect. If a guy doesn't have all of these things (and so many more subtle parts to it that I just can't list them all) then I won't be interested in him. The thing with opening doors is just something I enjoy, it makes me feel cared for and feminine. I do things in return that make my date feel masculine and admired. 

These things don't seem related to paying for dates, to me.


----------



## Personal

I haven't dated anyone outside of my wife for close to 21 years.

Most of the women I have dated including my wife, asked me out in the first instance.

In my experience the one doing the asking often paid in the first instance, while all other subsequent dating costs tended to be shared alternatively or sometimes coincidentally after that.



jld said:


> So here is a question. For the folks that prefer an even split of some sort, how do you maintain sexual attraction?


By being sexually attractive to the other person in whatever way seems to work for them. In my experience it happens quite easily. Just like in my experience a great marriage, really doesn't require much effort at all.

If a romantic or sexual relationship requires extraordinary effort to keep it going, it should be self evident that it's not worth such effort.


----------



## 269370

NextTimeAround said:


> You need to watch this. It's not worth bankrupting your household just to have a go at impressing people who don't care and you will probably never see again.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, you can into some unpleasant situations being generous around people who don't reciprocate.
> 
> 
> 
> Once my exH and I got a groupd of friends and their partners together to go to a sports event. As my ex was a member of a club he could VIP tickets --to sit in the enclosure and have high tea in the afternoon. Everyone paid for their own ticket. Early in the day we were at the bar at 2 tables. My husband was the table with the females buying rounds and I was at the table with the males. It dawned on none of the men to offer me a drink while my exH was buying their partners drinks. My husband finally nudged one of the guys. So apparently he even decided that it was not a pretty sight.




It's not about impressing people; more that I feel embarrassed anyone paying for me so instead end up paying for myself and everyone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Could also be in a relationship where you were Not valued as an equal either. Its truely a double edged sword


I would take my chances . . .


----------



## jld

introvert said:


> My dear mother broke her hip three weeks ago, and while I was parking my car at the hospital she was at to bring her to the nursing home for rehab,* I noticed a young couple getting into their car. New parents. The dad hopped into his side (driver's) and the new mom lugged the new baby in a car seat, put it into the back on her own, then opened her own door and got in. I was appalled, LOL. *
> 
> I love chivalry.


This is completely appalling. And unfortunately common.

I really do not understand what these fathers are thinking. And I feel terribly sorry for the mothers.


----------



## jld

Personal said:


> If a romantic or sexual relationship requires extraordinary effort to keep it going, it should be self evident that it's not worth such effort.


I agree with this. It should just flow naturally from both people.

For me, a man handing me the bill, or telling me my "share" of the bill, would be a complete disruption of whatever "flow" there may previously have been. I would just no longer see him as any kind of man I would want to be involved with. Tbh, I don't think I would even see him as a man anymore, not in *that* way.

Frankly, the whole idea of either of those things happening on what I would have understood to be a date, still, even 16 pages into this thread, seems shocking to me. 

But again, different strokes for different folks. It clearly works for some people.


----------



## NextTimeAround

inmyprime said:


> It's not about impressing people; *more that I feel embarrassed *anyone paying for me so instead end up paying for myself and everyone else.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


To be embarrassed is to be concerned about what others think.


----------



## 269370

NextTimeAround said:


> To be embarrassed is to be concerned about what others think.


Yes, and? You mentioned I was trying to "impress" others. I was telling you this was not the case. I don't disagree that I am _concerned_ what others might think. As I wrote, some get _offended_ instead.

It's funny, many of the restaurants I take my wife to often have a "his & hers" menu. So hers is without any prices. I wonder what the logic is? Are the numbers supposed to give the woman's pretty little head a seizure? I am always amused with these outdated etiquettes yet many of them are ingrained in me.


----------



## wild jade

jld said:


> I would take my chances . . .


Wow. Really? 

I would never take a chance on this one. After all, being valued is what all the rest of it is about. Isn't it?


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I would take my chances . . .


Chances is a good word. I wouldn't want and definitely teach my daughters not to. I want them to have their own means and not put themselves in an unequal position


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> As for the other things...opening doors, being a gentleman in general, putting me on the inside of the sidewalk furthest away from the road, handling interactions with other people to give me the best hassle free date experience, complimenting my attire for the date, and just generally acting like a great guy....this I have come to expect. If a guy doesn't have all of these things (and so many more subtle parts to it that I just can't list them all) then I won't be interested in him. The thing with opening doors is just something I enjoy, it makes me feel cared for and feminine. I do things in return that make my date feel masculine and admired.
> 
> These things don't seem related to paying for dates, to me.


this is exactly what I was saying. I can be chivalrous without buying your affections. As a matter of fact if I had to buy your attention wouldn't be worth it to me anyway.

Like 100%


----------



## Wolf1974

inmyprime said:


> Yes, and? You mentioned I was trying to "impress" others. I was telling you this was not the case. I don't disagree that I am _concerned_ what others might think. As I wrote, some get _offended_ instead.
> 
> It's funny, many of the restaurants I take my wife to often have a "his & hers" menu. So hers is without any prices. I wonder what the logic is? Are the numbers supposed to give the woman's pretty little head a seizure? I am always amused with these outdated etiquettes yet many of them are ingrained in me.


Wait what? You mean the restaurant has two different menus? How did I never see anything like this in Ireland. Is this a British thing? I have never seen that before .... fascinating


----------



## jld

wild jade said:


> Wow. Really?
> 
> I would never take a chance on this one. After all, being valued is what all the rest of it is about. Isn't it?


I think a man who pays the whole bill himself, and would actually not even think of handling it any other way, values the woman a lot more than a man using the excuse of "equal partner" to stick her with the tab, or her "half" of it.

Sorry, just not buying it. 

And I realize others may see this differently. But I do want to be clear how *I* see it.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Chances is a good word. I wouldn't want and definitely teach my daughters not to. I want them to have their own means and not put themselves in an unequal position


I do not want my daughter to be used by men.

I think who pays is a bellwether for that.

Again, we may just have to agree to disagree on this.


----------



## 269370

Wolf1974 said:


> Wait what? You mean the restaurant has two different menus? How did I never see anything like this in Ireland. Is this a British thing? I have never seen that before .... fascinating




It's mostly Michelin star restaurants or restaurants in fancy hotels (where they also bring you a pedestal for the woman's handbag, ridiculous). They have it all over Europe. In France they sometimes bring you a little 'cot' or sofa for your dog... We experienced it in Italy and France as well as UK. So the woman is supposed to be able to choose anything, without distraction from the numbers on her menu...While the husband sits and prays that she doesn't choose lobster of the day...otherwise he later has to sell his kidney ..It's very outdated. But kind of funny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding

Wolf1974 said:


> this is exactly what I was saying. I can be chivalrous without buying your affections. As a matter of fact if I had to buy your attention wouldn't be worth it to me anyway.
> 
> Like 100%


Yup, I think that is what several of us have been saying as well. It is amazing how some people here correlate spending money with showing a genuine interest in that person and a sign of chivalry, especially when we can acknowledge that there are people who pay with the expectation of getting something in return (so their motives / interest is questionable)... To each their own I guess


----------



## 269370

jld said:


> I think a man who pays the whole bill himself, and would actually not even think of handling it any other way, values the woman a lot more than a man using the excuse of "equal partner" to stick her with the tab, or her "half" of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, just not buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> And I realize others may see this differently. But I do want to be clear how *I* see it.




Some women might find it condescending if he doesn't 'allow' the woman to pull her own weight. I think the whole thing is less about who pays etc but more about HOW it's done.
That's why my preference was always that the bill doesn't even appear on the table. Some find that condescending too..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I do not want my daughter to be used by men.
> 
> I think who pays is a bellwether for that.
> 
> Again, we may just have to agree to disagree on this.


I think most people here would agree that we don't want to see women used by men. Likewise we don't want to teach women to use men for their resources. This is a balancing act.

My opinion on the whole issue of paying for the date has been that on first dates I plan on paying for it out of courtesy, but I wait to see if she offers to help out. If she doesn't or she acts like she's entitled to my money, then she's nothing more than a prostitute, and I won't be asking for a second date.


----------



## jld

inmyprime said:


> Some women might find it condescending if he doesn't 'allow' the woman to pull her own weight. I think the whole thing is less about who pays etc but more about HOW it's done.
> That's why my preference was always that the bill doesn't even appear on the table. Some find that condescending too..
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't think that is what some of the folks on the thread are getting at. I think they really just do not want to pay.


----------



## jld

lovelygirl said:


> Yes, Albanian. Eastern European.
> 
> We over here don't go Dutch on dates, although we might to go Dutch while hanging out with friends.
> But *going Dutch on dates is seen as cheap and despicable*.


Great description.

My husband is from France and he sees it the same way. He is as shocked as I am by some of the responses on this thread.

But that is the beauty of a forum: hearing a variety of views.


----------



## Maricha75

inmyprime said:


> It's mostly Michelin star restaurants or restaurants in fancy hotels (where they also bring you a pedestal for the woman's handbag, ridiculous). They have it all over Europe. In France they sometimes bring you a little 'cot' or sofa for your dog... We experienced it in Italy and France as well as UK. So the woman is supposed to be able to choose anything, without distraction from the numbers on her menu...While the husband sits and prays that she doesn't choose lobster of the day...otherwise he later has to sell his kidney ..It's very outdated. But kind of funny.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ridiculous. I would insist on seeing prices to make my decision. If tgat was not am option, I would go over the entire menu with my husband and ask him the price lol. Even if he is paying, I will do all I can to keep the cost down. Lol probably why the highest priced places we have gone have been restaurants like Olive Garden, Applebees, and The Melting Pot! 😊

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> I think a man who pays the whole bill himself, and would actually not even think of handling it any other way, values the woman a lot more than a man using the excuse of "equal partner" to stick her with the tab, or her "half" of it.
> 
> Sorry, just not buying it.
> 
> And I realize others may see this differently. But I do want to be clear how *I* see it.


What you describe here is how I've always been treated ... this is how my husband was raised, his world view....If a man really LIKES a woman, wants to get to know her...he does the honors of asking her out and picking up dinner... He's always been Old fashioned like that...and I deeply appreciate it... 

Now on the other hand.. I can easily see WHY men want a fair shake here...Feminism has changed many things.. women are proud to be equal, some may even be offended if the man shows any signs of being Chivalrous... a man needs to be careful to gauge these things... or she may be offended if he doesn't offer !!- if she is a strong feminist (women can do everything men can do, treat us equal always on their lips).. I kinda wonder why -to be honest.. why should certain things stay the same (his paying) while other things are let loose & called archaic and old fashioned in a derogatory manner.. yet we expect him to always pick up the tab.... 

Our culture, attitudes have changed over the years... how many even go out to eat before they hit the bedroom anymore, people don't even like to call it "dating"..... everything is so casual today... A man could go broke if he was paying for a new casual hookup dinner every other day.. hopefully he is choosing wisely on who may be interested IN HIM ... 

Back in the day.. it seemed men would be fixated on one special woman, and he'd go out of his way to woo that one woman, he'd want to show her how much he cares..Now a days, a woman might feel he's desperate to be so accommodating.. or she may get the vibe he's too old fashioned and that's a turn off too.. What's a man to do !! 

Answer : Be who he is.. and hopefully find a woman who appreciates it !

I can see both sides really...I have a preference ...(of course I feel it speaks well of a man to offer)...yet I can see a man's side also...sometimes we have to adjust a little for modern times.. I wouldn't dis a guy for not paying...I would surely offer to pay my own...I may also suggest a lower cost restaurant though too.. Let's face it... any little thing we do or don't do.. could be a subtle deal breaker for another, no 2nd date... 

Never forgot this old thread... This Guy Perfectly Explains Who Should Pay On A Dinner Date  with the same titled article here...

>> This Guy Perfectly Explains Who Should Pay On A Dinner Date  Had to agree with this guy 100% ... worth a listen..


----------



## 269370

jld said:


> I don't think that is what some of the folks on the thread are getting at. I think they really just do not want to pay.




Haha, I think each situation has to be be judged on its own merit. There can be no rules that's the point.
Imagine the guy is thinking that by the time he's done signing the cheque, he'll be expecting her to start spreading her legs.
It doesn't sound like a happy situation to me.
Although if it's made into a game like that, with both consenting, it could be fun 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jb02157

EunuchMonk said:


> I would pay (and there are many asides as to why) BUT I can understand why some men don't want to. They say the equality movement should make all those old ideas of chivalry go out the window (which are kinda sexist, if you really think about it). Because feminist have all these ways to undercut men's role in relationships. It's like they want to give a man the responsibilities of manhood but not the privileges.
> 
> They may say, "Oh, a man should pay, Be a man."
> Man, "Who is the head of the relationship?"
> Her, "There is no head, you chauvinist. We are both our own heads."
> Man, "Well, as equals, we will split the bill 50/50."
> *drops his half and walks off*
> 
> Since back then men were the only ones working and making money it made sense for them to be the ones paying. Now with women finding success just as often -- if not more often -- as men, they should have no problem chipping in on the cheque. And not have this entitled attitude to a man's money.
> 
> Couple that with the fact that many date for fun, to get a good time and a free meal and it makes you wary of being used.
> 
> What @Andy1001 says makes sense too. If you asked her out then it would makes sense that you would pay.


I think the is guy screwed no matter what happens. If he pays, he's sexist and a chauvinist if he doesn't or pays half of the bill, he's cheap. Whereas if the woman if tries paying even half of the bill the guy will insist to pay the whole bill. She gets a free meal and a night with a nice guy, the guy gets insulted but still tries to get a next date.


----------



## jld

inmyprime said:


> Haha, I think each situation has to be be judged on its own merit. There can be no rules that's the point.
> Imagine the guy is thinking that by the time he's done signing the cheque, he'll be expecting her to start spreading her legs.
> It doesn't sound like a happy situation to me.
> Although if it's made into a game like that, with both consenting, it could be fun
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I guess he will have to find a way to deal with his disappointment. She certainly does not owe him anything.

Actually, that's probably the time to leave any relationship, whether just starting out or established: when you feel pressured to deliver but you don't feel inspired by him at all.


----------



## jld

jb02157 said:


> I think the is guy screwed no matter what happens. If he pays, he's sexist and a chauvinist if he doesn't or pays half of the bill, he's cheap. Whereas if the woman if tries paying even half of the bill the guy will insist to pay the whole bill. She gets a free meal and a night with a nice guy, the guy gets insulted but still tries to get a next date.


Sounds like this guy needs some confidence in himself.


----------



## 269370

Maricha75 said:


> Ridiculous. I would insist on seeing prices to make my decision. If tgat was not am option, I would go over the entire menu with my husband and ask him the price lol. Even if he is paying, I will do all I can to keep the cost down. Lol probably why the highest priced places we have gone have been restaurants like Olive Garden, Applebees, and The Melting Pot!
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk




To be fair, most of the other tables were occupied by couples where the guy looked about 85, eating with a 22 year old blond. I think I overheard her order a half portion of 'Araki' (which was the name of the restaurant) :-/ I think putting prices on her menu would have been overkill 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

jb02157 said:


> I think the is guy screwed no matter what happens.



I think this would be a positive outcome of a date...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WorkingWife

inmyprime said:


> I have a huge problem letting ANYONE pay for ANYTHING. It is so bad that my wife forbids me to go anywhere with anyone. (I still go). Paying for females was always a given, date or no date (very sexist, I know) but I also always fight for bills with anyone else, even if it is a business dinner. I just physically cannot let anyone else pay for a bill. It's always been like this and I have no idea what to do about it. My mind tells me it's wrong but my hands always put that credit card down first.


Do you have a ton of money? If not, do you think you have a strong desire for others to think you're doing very well financially? 

I like picking up the tab with others, but I also have no problem letting them pay.


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> Sounds like this guy needs some confidence in himself.


I'm curious. Why would you think that a gut being insulted for being himself would nerd some confidence in himself? Seems to me that if a woman places a man in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, she would be the problem, not him. A woman who acts like that is, IMNSHO, an entitled, spoiled brat.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I do not want my daughter to be used by men.
> 
> I think who pays is a bellwether for that.
> 
> Again, we may just have to agree to disagree on this.


You set that dynamic up pretty Clearly when you put yourself at a disadvantage. Can't be used if your supporting yourself and making your own way


----------



## jb02157

Maricha75 said:


> I'm curious. Why would you think that a gut being insulted for being himself would nerd some confidence in himself? Seems to me that if a woman places a man in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, she would be the problem, not him. A woman who acts like that is, IMNSHO, an entitled, spoiled brat.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


Yes, you absolutely get it!


----------



## jld

Maricha75 said:


> I'm curious. Why would you think that a gut being insulted for being himself would nerd some confidence in himself? Seems to me that if a woman places a man in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, she would be the problem, not him. A woman who acts like that is, IMNSHO, an entitled, spoiled brat.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


Why should he concern himself with what other people think?

A confident man knows his values.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> You set that dynamic up pretty Clearly when you put yourself at a disadvantage. Can't be used if your supporting yourself and making your own way


I think whether or not the man pays for a date is a good weeder. If he cannot afford much, then they can do inexpensive or free things. 

No one is entitled to a date with anyone.

Again, we may just have to agree to disagree on this.


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> Why should he concern himself with what other people think?
> 
> A confident man knows his values.


And, again, I ask... what does his confidence have to do with an entitled brat trying to tell him he is less of a man if he is being himself? It. Doesn't. The problem is not his confidence. The problem is HER attitude.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding

Maricha75 said:


> And, again, I ask... what does his confidence have to do with an entitled brat trying to tell him he is less of a man if he is being himself? It. Doesn't. The problem is not his confidence. The problem is HER attitude.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


The answer is inspiration Maricha ... it is the guy's responsibility to inspire her. If she isn't inspired, it is his fault, not hers, not her attitude, etc...


----------



## Wolf1974

EllisRedding said:


> Yup, I think that is what several of us have been saying as well. It is amazing how some people here correlate spending money with showing a genuine interest in that person and a sign of chivalry, especially when we can acknowledge that there are people who pay with the expectation of getting something in return (so their motives / interest is questionable)... To each their own I guess


Yep I have known plenty of men who bought their way into a woman's heart/pants And then summarily dumped them when the new shiny come along. Used to think of those guys as slimy but seems some women purposely put themsleves in that position as I am learning from this thread. Guess if money spent is what matters then can't Blame a guy for using it.


----------



## jld

Maricha75 said:


> And, again, I ask... what does his confidence have to do with an entitled brat trying to tell him he is less of a man if he is being himself? It. Doesn't. The problem is not his confidence. The problem is HER attitude.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


He is not entitled to her, Maricha. Not her time, her attitude, anything.

The way I see it, he would be much better off developing confidence in himself and letting other people think whatever they want.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I think whether or not the man pays for a date is a good weeder. If he cannot afford much, then they can do inexpensive or free things.
> 
> No one is entitled to a date with anyone.
> 
> Again, we may just have to agree to disagree on this.


Oh we don't agree but I appreciate the perspective. As I said I used to think guys who used money "buy" women were slimy but this has made me reconsider it. If that's your value from men then so be it I won't blame them for using it...


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> He is not entitled to her, Maricha. Not her time, her attitude, anything.
> 
> The way I see it, he would be much better off developing confidence in himself and letting other people think whatever they want.


And of course In turn she is not entitled to his money either. Equality and all that ...

But when he buys her that's exactly what he feels entitled to... her time, attitude, body etc. if you want to avoid these types you have to be an equal partner. Can't have it both ways


----------



## EllisRedding

Wolf1974 said:


> Yep I have known plenty of men who bought their way into a woman's heart/pants And then summarily dumped them when the new shiny come along. *Used to think of those guys as slimy but seems some women purposely put themselves in that position as I am learning from this thread. Guess if money spent is what matters then can't Blame a guy for using it*.


Starting to agree with this as well, why wouldn't a guy use it to his advantage (similar to you, not that I agree with this approach). Seems the thought from some here, her worth is quantified in dollars. If he doesn't have a lot of money, do something inexpensive (which would then seem to indicate that if he does have a lot of money, he should be ready to spend it at will). His trustworthiness and genuine interest in her (or more so the appearance of such) rides on this, so get the checkbook/credit card/gift card/wad of cash ready :grin2:


----------



## 269370

Come on boys and girls, it's just a gesture. The question was "who should pay on dates?". There is no 'should'. The guy CAN pay, if he wants to, or the woman CAN pay. No rules, no presumptions, ideally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> And of course In turn she is not entitled to his money either. Equality and all that ...
> 
> But when he buys her that's exactly what he feels entitled to... her time, attitude, body etc. if you want to avoid these types you have to be an equal partner. Can't have it both ways


Feeling entitled and actually being entitled are two separate things. 

No court is going to tell her she owes him sex for having paid for her dinner.


----------



## Wolf1974

EllisRedding said:


> Starting to agree with this as well, why wouldn't a guy use it to his advantage (similar to you, not that I agree with this approach). Seems the thought from some here, her worth is quantified in dollars. If he doesn't have a lot of money, do something inexpensive (which would then seem to indicate that if he does have a lot of money, he should be ready to spend it at will). His trustworthiness and genuine interest in her (or more so the appearance of such) rides on this, so get the checkbook/credit card/gift card/wad of cash ready :grin2:


Yep definitely learned some things here. Can't think of them as victims if they put themselves there.

But just to assure men here about to become single and wade into the dating area fear not. I have been on many first dates in recent years and only one time did I ever have a woman tell me that she only went out if a guy bought her dinner. 1 time in like 150 first dates it is truely rare. The best thing to do is go slow and inexpensive and not over commit time and resources until you know the person you are seeing is worth it. That's for both genders.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Feeling entitled and actually being entitled are two separate things.
> 
> No court is going to tell her she owes him sex for having paid for her dinner.


Hence why I said feeling entitled and not entitled probably. 

I certainly will help my daughters avoid those scenarios but you can teach yours how you please as well of course.


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> He is not entitled to her, Maricha. Not her time, her attitude, anything.
> 
> The way I see it, he would be much better off developing confidence in himself and letting other people think whatever they want.


He has plenty of confidence in himself. He is confident in the man he IS. That's the point. I truly cannot see how you feel he is lacking in confidence when the woman is clearly trying to put him in a no win situation. He chooses that which fits him. I'd say thst shows plenty of confidence.

SHE, on the other hand, is sorely lacking in manners, attitude, etc. 

Were either of my sons in this predicament, I absolutely would advise them to pay for their own food and leave. Any woman who would place a man in such a bad position is not someone I would want for my boys. And any man who would put my daughter in a similar situation would be met with the same reaction from me. 


Wolf1974 said:


> And of course In turn she is not entitled to his money either. Equality and all that ...
> 
> But when he buys her that's exactly what he feels entitled to... her time, attitude, body etc. if you want to avoid these types you have to be an equal partner. Can't have it both ways


Exactly. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## Maricha75

EllisRedding said:


> The answer is inspiration Maricha ... it is the guy's responsibility to inspire her. If she isn't inspired, it is his fault, not hers, not her attitude, etc...


Oh, brother... 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## lovelygirl

inmyprime said:


> It's not about impressing people; more that I feel embarrassed anyone paying for me so instead end up paying for myself and everyone else.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You're like my mom. She always pays for anyone, whether it's a man or a woman, whether it's a date or not. 
Even when she doesn't have to pay, she feels like she NEEDS to pay and if she doesn't ...she sort of gets "OCD" about it lol. 

Sometimes I act like her. I feel bad for not paying so I end up paying for friends..even when I don't have to. I think I've got it from mom.


----------



## lovelygirl

inmyprime said:


> Some women might find it condescending if he doesn't 'allow' the woman to pull her own weight. I think the whole thing is less about who pays etc but more about HOW it's done.
> That's why my preference was always that the bill doesn't even appear on the table. Some find that condescending too..
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'd love it even more if the bill didn't appear on the table. It'd give me the signal that my man already took care of everythihng...and all I have to do is enjoy his company and myself. A big thumbsup to you, *@inmyprime.*


----------



## wild jade

jld said:


> I think a man who pays the whole bill himself, and would actually not even think of handling it any other way, values the woman a lot more than a man using the excuse of "equal partner" to stick her with the tab, or her "half" of it.
> 
> Sorry, just not buying it.
> 
> And I realize others may see this differently. But I do want to be clear how *I* see it.


But you seem to be limiting this to a single scenario. A man paying the bill for some "date" activity, or alternatively "sticking" her with the tab

Let's go a bit deeper. Say it isn't the first date. Say it isn't using an "excuse" of "equal partner". Actually the guy just doesn't make tons of money and she does. Or say he's run into some sort of difficulty: illness, accident, natural disaster. What then?

Are you actually saying that all guys should always pay all bills regardless of any sort of circumstance? Just because anything else is "using the excuse of equal partner"? What would you do if (god forbid!) your husband was temporarily disabled? Would you suck it up and step in and make it work? I'm betting you would. But what if your husband then couldn't handle it? And he spiralled even further downward because it freaked him out too much to have you actually have any power or say in the relationship?

Valuing a person isn't, IMHO, about how much money you will drop on this bill or that. Lots of guys will drop all kinds of money on things they don't care a whit about just because they happen to have money. And I will say most certainly and with emphasis that having money does not make one a better person. Nor does it prevent you from abusing another person because you think that all this money and paying of bills should let you dictate how things will be. 

Valuing a person is about seeing them, who they are, caring about them, giving thought to them, not just about picking up a tab.

Of course, YMMV.


----------



## lovelygirl

Faithful Wife said:


> 1. I think it is silly to "expect" men to pay for first dates so I'm showing men with my wallet that I feel this way. I also tell them those exact words if the opportunity comes up, such as when they say they are surprised that I am willing to pay the bill. Some men swipe the bill out of my hand and insist on paying, but I don't take it to mean they will always pay for every date.


It's not about "expecting" the man to pay. It's just nice and appealing if it paid it. "Expecting" is like wanting to get a free meal. 



> 2. I have plenty of disposable income for this type of entertainment and I like spending it however I want, which includes paying for first dates.


In my case, just because I want the man to pay, doesn't mean I don't have the income for this type of entertainment and doesn't make me less independent. Certainly, doesn't make me want to have a free meal either.  
But I get your idea.


> 3. I do not want a man to think I owe him any thing just because he has paid for a first date or subsequent dates. Granted, I have not encountered any men who think "that way" anyway in my dating life so it may be the least of my reasons for paying, but it is still there.


I get it. 
In my opinion though, if the man* has some brain* and _notices my offer to pay_ on the first date (although he still ends up paying), wouldn't make me feel like I owe him anything...and certainly wouldn't even think it that way.  
When the date is over and it's time to pay, (personally) it's not that I stay there like a zombie..."waiting" for him to pay. I actually, MOVE, take out my wallet, _offer_ to pay, _take out my money_ ..... but he ends up paying and that's how I'd prefer it. But if he doesn't end up paying, I would pay it with no problem...(even-though I wouldn't like his lack of chivalry...and probably wouldn't meet him for a second date. ) :wink2:

So it's not just about him paying or not, it's also about the woman's attitude towards his gesture of paying. 
Sure, there are girls who don't even move a finger to offer to pay...let alone actually perform the payment. Not one of them, thank God. 
But I get your idea. 



> 5. I sincerely enjoy "treating" people to things. A first date is one thing I can treat some people to, I also enjoy buying lunch for my friends. Some friends will refuse, but some of them are broke and don't refuse and are just eternally grateful. Again, I have disposable income for this, so with my friends who do not have that luxury, they are just glad to get to live my lifestyle with me sometimes when they couldn't have gone out with me if they had to foot their own bill (not meaning just lunch but also other outings, concerts, etc).


Same. I don't mind treating people either and I do it often. But with dates though, it's more of a sh*t test that I do towards the guy.



> I wouldn't expect a man or anyone else to just constantly cover me on those things. I'm just happy if he can cover himself and still have plenty of money for other things.


If a man mentioned how much he's paid for me and things he's done for me, then clearly he didn't do it out of pleasure...but apparently to show off. He's not worth it. 
If you do something for your SO and you enjoy it, then no need to mention or bring it up in the conversation in the form of the favor. 



> 7. Men don't tell you their emotions with money anyway. A man paying for my dates does not mean he is invested in me, likes me that much, or anything else really. It usually just means he is being a gentleman and following our cultural narrative. But men sometimes feel resentful that they inherited this particular narrative and then they still sometimes pay anyway...and that doesn't turn out well for me. I want to just take any potential resentment out of the picture.


True and fair enough. :smile2:



> 8. I want any man I date to know I have my own money and am not after his.


True. But again, just because he pays and if he has some brain and notices the type of the classy woman you are, he won't think you're after his money. If he thinks otherwise, he's a waste of time. 
Some men lack common sense to differentiate women and notice who are and who aren't after money. 
I'd get tired of them easily.



> I feel more free to order and do anything I want when I know I'm going to grab the check first.


True. 
But in my case, being the type of woman who is not that expensive with stuff, I don't usually worry about this part.
I remember last year when I was dating a guy and we went out for drinks, I ordered just a tonic water all night long (2-3 hours) and his comment (joking) was: "Wow...you're not even expensive...damn!" 
It was a sign to let him know that just because we both knew he'd pay, I didn't take advantage of that.


----------



## 269370

lovelygirl said:


> You're like my mom. She always pays for anyone, whether it's a man or a woman, whether it's a date or not.
> 
> Even when she doesn't have to pay, she feels like she NEEDS to pay and if she doesn't ...she sort of gets "OCD" about it lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes I act like her. I feel bad for not paying so I end up paying for friends..even when I don't have to. I think I've got it from mom.




Yes, that's exactly it. Your mum is also exactly like my mum. I think I must have got it from your mum 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

WorkingWife said:


> Do you have a ton of money? If not, do you think you have a strong desire for others to think you're doing very well financially?



Just trying to compensate with my ton of money, for my very enormous penis...
Only joking. This is really not it.

I just hate 'owing' anything to anyone and it's not exactly possible for me to start telling people how much their share is when the bill comes so my reaction is then just to put the credit card down and pay for the whole thing. Friends will usually insist on me taking their share anyway so I'm not always bankrupting myself...I just mean that psychologically, I'm extremely awkward when someone is paying and tend to anticipate the situation by snatching the bill first...

Regarding eating with women...I don't think I ever accepted money from them. I know it doesn't really make sense because we are all supposed to be equal etc. But if you court a woman, it sort of comes naturally that you want to treat her to nice things and show that you can take good care of her. You don't HAVE to show it her this way, but it's ONE of the ways.
(To be fair, if you marry and have kids etc, the likelihood is that those dates expenditures will pale into such insignificance that it's not even worth mentioning...).
Generally, women find it off putting (in my experience) if they feel the guy might be like another child they might have to provide for.
But I don't have a lot of experience. I only courted one woman properly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wolf1974

inmyprime said:


> Just trying to compensate with my ton of money, for my very enormous penis...
> Only joking. This is really not it.
> 
> I just hate 'owing' anything to anyone and it's not exactly possible for me to start telling people how much their share is when the bill comes so my reaction is then just to put the credit card down and pay for the whole thing. Friends will usually insist on me taking their share anyway so I'm not always bankrupting myself...I just mean that psychologically, I'm extremely awkward when someone is paying and tend to anticipate the situation by snatching the bill first...
> 
> Regarding eating with women...I don't think I ever accepted money from them. I know it doesn't really make sense because we are all supposed to be equal etc. But if you court a woman, it sort of comes naturally that you want to treat her to nice things and show that you can take good care of her. You don't HAVE to show it her this way, but it's ONE of the ways.
> (To be fair, if you marry and have kids etc, the likelihood is that those dates expenditures will pale into such insignificance that it's not even worth mentioning...).
> Generally, women find it off putting (in my experience) if they feel the guy might be like another child they might have to *provide for.*
> But I don't have a lot of experience. I only courted one woman properly.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


guess this is where many of us diverge. Her paying for a movie while I take care of dinner isn't providing for me, I could pay for my own damn movie just like she could provide her own food. But we are both contributing to providing for OUR relationship. And I believe that needs to be Caretaken equally but not 50-50.


----------



## NextTimeAround

inmyprime said:


> Just trying to compensate with my ton of money, for my very enormous penis...
> Only joking. This is really not it.
> 
> I just hate 'owing' anything to anyone and it's not exactly possible for me to start telling people how much their share is when the bill comes so my reaction is then just to put the credit card down and pay for the whole thing. Friends will usually insist on me taking their share anyway so I'm not always bankrupting myself...I just mean that psychologically, I'm extremely awkward when someone is paying and tend to anticipate the situation by snatching the bill first...
> 
> *Regarding eating with women...I don't think I ever accepted money from them*. I know it doesn't really make sense because we are all supposed to be equal etc. But if you court a woman, it sort of comes naturally that you want to treat her to nice things and show that you can take good care of her. You don't HAVE to show it her this way, but it's ONE of the ways.
> (To be fair, if you marry and have kids etc, the likelihood is that those dates expenditures will pale into such insignificance that it's not even worth mentioning...).
> Generally, women find it off putting (in my experience) if they feel the guy might be like another child they might have to provide for.
> But I don't have a lot of experience. I only courted one woman properly.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


does your wife know about this? Have you ever told her that you two can't afford something either at the moment or ever? Have you had to say no to your children?

How would you feel if you knew that your wife was having dinner with men who were paying for her?

in the early days with my (future) husband, it was up and down about who paid for what. One, because he was trying to decide who was more important, me or the friend. He also admitted to me 2 years later that she had advised him not to pay for me because I might be making a lot of money. 

Anyway...... he and I went to an expat activity in London and after the activity we went to a pub. He then asked me if "needed to buy me a drink." Well, with that kind of attitude, I said no. So I started talking with another guy who offered me and a drink and I accepted. When future husband became aware of it, he was annoyed that I actually accepted a drink from another man despite his earlier behavior.

So, he didn't want to spend HIS money on men. But he also did not want another man to spend money on me..... you men......


----------



## 269370

NextTimeAround said:


> does your wife know about this?
> 
> 
> 
> in the early days with my (future) husband, it was up and down about who paid for what. One, because he was trying to decide who was more important, me or the friend. He also admitted to me 2 years later that she had advised him not to pay for me because I might be making a lot of money.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway...... he and I went to an expat activity in London and after the activity we went to a pub. He then asked me if "needed to buy me a drink." Well, with that kind of attitude, I said no. So I started talking with another guy who offered me and a drink and I accepted. When future husband became aware of it, he was annoyed that I actually accepted a drink from another man despite his earlier behavior.




Sorry maybe I wasn't clear...I can feel a lot of conjecture coming over me like flies onto poop...
The women I bought lunch or dinner for were either her friends (we would all be eating together) or her sister (when our families eat out and her sister's husband is away etc) or women that I had something to eat with from before me and my wife met....I don't make it a habit dining with women and paying for them without my wife's knowledge. If i go out for lunch or dinner with anyone, of course my wife will know about it.. I think on balance it is probably wrong to pay for a female work colleague for example but I have done it in the past, out of habit or embarrassment, not because I wanted anything from her. I also have some gay friends i go out with and sometimes treat them (for a birthday or something)...I don't expect them to put out afterwards though  And my wife knows about them.

"How would you feel if you knew that your wife was having dinner with men who were paying for her?"

Stop feeding my hot wife fantasies 

"Have you ever told her that you two can't afford something either at the moment or ever? Have you had to say no to your children?"

I don't want to come across the wrong way (probably too late) but I made sure early on that there is nothing she ever desires that I can't afford (within reason). I know it sounds bad especially to someone who is struggling financially. If we were in such situation, I know she would be understanding but fortunately, it has never really arisen. I always made sure we had more than we needed to spend. However if we had to take the kids out of private schools, maybe she wouldn't be as understanding (this is what my gut feeling is telling me), but when it comes to us, she is totally easy. I'm the one who is always stressing out about how to find ways to spoil her.

She is actually entirely undemanding and has very simple tastes. But if she ever drops a hint of something or I notice she likes something in particular, i make sure she gets the best kind, and two of those. I like to see her uncomfortable when I spoil her (and she does get very uncomfortable). I think if she was the type of person who would demand a lot of things from me, it would make me put off providing those things.

Saying no to kids: I don't know yet, they are still too young to ask for a Porsche but I can imagine I will have a hard time saying no to them especially my daughter so my wife does it usually...

"So, he didn't want to spend HIS money on men. But he also did not want another man to spend money on me..... you men......"

Yep, finding the balance between appropriate amount of cockblocking vs reality can be a *****.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> But you seem to be limiting this to a single scenario. A man paying the bill for some "date" activity, or alternatively "sticking" her with the tab
> 
> 
> 
> Let's go a bit deeper. Say it isn't the first date. Say it isn't using an "excuse" of "equal partner". Actually the guy just doesn't make tons of money and she does. Or say he's run into some sort of difficulty: illness, accident, natural disaster. What then?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually saying that all guys should always pay all bills regardless of any sort of circumstance? Just because anything else is "using the excuse of equal partner"? What would you do if (god forbid!) your husband was temporarily disabled? Would you suck it up and step in and make it work? I'm betting you would. But what if your husband then couldn't handle it? And he spiralled even further downward because it freaked him out too much to have you actually have any power or say in the relationship?
> 
> 
> 
> Valuing a person isn't, IMHO, about how much money you will drop on this bill or that. Lots of guys will drop all kinds of money on things they don't care a whit about just because they happen to have money. And I will say most certainly and with emphasis that having money does not make one a better person. Nor does it prevent you from abusing another person because you think that all this money and paying of bills should let you dictate how things will be.
> 
> 
> 
> Valuing a person is about seeing them, who they are, caring about them, giving thought to them, not just about picking up a tab.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, YMMV.




I don't think she was saying that one needs to exclude the other or that picking up tab also precludes giving thought to them. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Wolf1974 said:


> guess this is where many of us diverge. Her paying for a movie while I take care of dinner isn't providing for me, I could pay for my own damn movie just like she could provide her own food. But we are both contributing to providing for OUR relationship. And I believe that needs to be Caretaken equally but not 50-50.



I respect that and don't particularly disagree. I don't think this would constitute as 'providing' for you if you shared things. There are 'princesses', it is true. Those were usually not my type anyway (too high maintenance). I like to find someone 'normal' and make them feel like a princess. An actual princess will suck you dry and leave you bleeding (probably).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld said:


> I think a man who pays the whole bill himself, and would actually not even think of handling it any other way, values the woman a lot more than a man using the excuse of "equal partner" to stick her with the tab, or her "half" of it.
> 
> Sorry, just not buying it.
> 
> And I realize others may see this differently. But I do want to be clear how *I* see it.


Hi jld 

So there's a little more to this nuance, and again I have not read the whole thread so I apologize if these points were already made...

First of all, there are lots of reasons people date, there are many different dating goals. Here are a few examples or goals:

*to find a true love and live happily ever after

*just to get laid, with no attachments (whether they inform the other person of this or not)

*to find a boyfriend or girlfriend, not looking for forever (young people and divorced people especially) (and another caveat is that boy/girlfriend is a loose term and can mean a lot or a little commitment to different people, and it may not even mean sexual exclusivity to some people)

*to have fun dating, if something develops then great, if not, I still had fun dating



So the way you date and how you behave is different when you have different goals. And the way you find dates is different as well.

In my recent dating experience which is what I made my posts about, I have been exclusively online dating. I have not been asked out by anyone who met me in person first (though a few would have but circumstances prevented it). I have also not been looking for Mr. Right because I had just ended my marriage and I wasn't down for that type of feelings just yet. So basically I wanted a companion and sex partner, someone who we mutually really care about each other, maybe in love but it wasn't necessary, someone who would not expect me to move toward a more committed relationship any time soon (though sexual exclusivity is a must for me). To do this I did a lot of online dating.

When you are doing online dating and you are kind of busy at it (1 - 3 dates a week), you end up burning through a whole lot of first dates. Now for me, I actually enjoy first dates or meets. It is fun to me. Even if there is no chance and/or no chemistry or whatever, I still always had a nice chat with an interesting new person. But my time is also valuable so I certainly tried to only have first dates with people who might fit the bill I described above, and therefore I had lots and lots of first dates with men who on paper and in pictures looked like a decent match for what I want right now. It was so great! So fun, fascinating, and interesting.

But the bottom line to online dating is that 95% of first dates won't go anywhere (again depending on how busy you get at it, what your goals are, and what market you are dating in...IOW some people could narrow down the amount of dates but possibly get a higher success rate). And because of this, I ended up viewing first dates as something more like an interview. I love interviews too actually! We were mutually interviewing each other for a certain position in each other's lives. It is no one's fault that most of the time this doesn't turn into a second date, and frankly, I wasn't asking any of these guys to try to win me over or show me what he is really made of. I didn't even want that, I just wanted a friendly, no strings meet up, the same as I might do to meet a new consultant I was considering hiring for a special type of job. In a case like that I would happily pick up the tab to have lunch with said potential consultant. 

In the end, I had many GREAT dates, and a couple of those did turn into a little or a lot more. 

But let's say that a man noticed me somewhere and approached me, talked me up, was clearly interested in me, found out I was single, asked for my number and said he would love to take me to dinner sometime. Let's just say further that this man's dating goal is to find a life partner. This has happened to me before, but it is rare. In this type of case, every man who did this planned a great date and paid for everything (and I did not interfere).

This guy I've just described is a whole lot different than the online daters I mentioned above, specifically men who are also burning through a lot of first dates. Your approach is a lot different when you know you are just weeding through people in order to find someone for these (somewhat limited) specific dating goals. Guys who also aren't looking for "the one" who are a match for me, are way more able and ready to be flattered and happy if/when a woman reaches for the check. But the guy whose goal it was to have a life partner and who was truly interested at first sight in a woman, he is more likely to refuse the very thought of her paying (this is not strictly true however).

In all of the first dates I've had where I paid the check, not one of these guys EVER tried to hand me the check. None of them even expected it, actually. Every one of them was more or less stunned a little by it, and all of them said "ok but I'm getting the next one". Keep in mind, these are very casual dates, sometimes just coffee, with very low expectations of a relationship coming out of it. (Not that I wouldn't pay for a great steak for a guy on a date and I have....but never a first date).

So I don't want you to think that there are all these men out there throwing the check at their dates and saying hey babe, pay the bill. I've never experienced that nor heard of any friend IRL experience it. I think you maybe have just pictured this happening (or maybe heard of someone) and assumed it goes further than it does.

I do understand your overall opinion of the matter however, and I respect your old school stance.


----------



## wild jade

inmyprime said:


> I don't think she was saying that one needs to exclude the other or that picking up tab also precludes giving thought to them.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No, I don't think so either. I was just trying to point out that there are men out there that quite literally don't see women as equal, and are threatened by women having any sort of power, financial or otherwise This type of guy can't actually handle it if a woman pays for him or earns more money or whatever. And I've seen this up close, and it ain't pretty. I'd never risk being with a man like that no matter how many of my bills he tries to pay for me. 

I'd much rather be with a man who values my equality, financial independence, power, whatever you want to call it.


----------



## Personal

jld said:


> I would not trust a man who did not expect to pay.





jld said:


> I think a man's paying shows maturity and respect for his date.





jld said:


> Honestly, I would see anything else, regardless of who did the asking, as a red flag.





jld said:


> I just do not see good things coming from young men who expect a date to pay for herself, and maybe him, too.





jld said:


> I think a man who pays the whole bill himself, and would actually not even think of handling it any other way, values the woman a lot more than a man using the excuse of "equal partner" to stick her with the tab, or her "half" of it.


I think using who pays as a measure of someones integrity and maturity is a fools errand. Who pays versus how a person conducts themselves is superfluous chaff.

Through my dating experience I never expected the woman to pay, yet the reality was there were women like my wife and others who asked me out on dates and paid for those dates.

Whenever I asked a woman out on a date and she accepted in the first instance through to the second. I always ensured that I could cover the costs of what we were doing and for the most part paid for it all.

Yet there were times where the woman I was with wanted to pay for part of what we were doing, or wanted to share the bill. So on those occasions I did not argue with them, since they as autonomous individuals were entitled to make their own choices.

I remember dating one woman who I pursued rather briefly that I paid for on every occasion, who in every instance did not offer to share the costs or pay at any point. Then after each date I had sex with her, where it felt like I was paying for sex and affection. So I just stopped asking her out, and saved some money.

For the most part though I was asked out by other women, who in the majority of instances for the first date wanted to pay. Though I would always offer to share the costs, there were many occasions where they insisted on covering it.

When dating a women that I met, who asked me out and I accepted. I always presumed they were interested in me, and having said yes I was reciprocally interested in them. So when sharing a mutual attraction, sharing the costs has always seemed perfectly sweet to me.

On the other hand if a woman is playing games and offering to pay yet expecting not to pay as a test, they simply wouldn't be worth my time. If a woman requires treasure in order to be interested in me, they are evidently behaving like a prostitute.

Since sex has always come to me very easily without a fee, I don't see any point in participating in any romantic or sexual relationship, where a woman is effectively prostituting themselves.

All of my dating was done with no expectation of finding a wife or a long term relationship partner. All I was looking for was to share sex with people I was mutually attracted to. If that led to a long term relationship because we clicked together and enjoyed sharing that sex great. If it didn't lead to a long term relationship because we didn't click together, that was also great since we evidently weren't suited to each other for a longer term. If faced with dating others again, I would still follow the same path.

All of that said by your measure of who pays, you would think I used women, lacked maturity, integrity and respect for them.

Yet none of those things are true of me at all, I never misrepresented myself when dating, I never promised anything I didn't deliver. I shared the fact that I was divorced and was paying child support for my daughter. I never expected anything or demanded the same, I never tried to convince or coerce anyone into doing anything, since if that was required I figured they didn't want it. While I have never cheated on any of my sexual partners at all.

Despite having a largely laissez faire attitude with respect to dating and having sex, with no expectation of having any long term relationships with anyone and not always paying. Through 28 years I have spent almost 25 of those years, in longer term relationships with three different women. With the longest one being with my wife, who I have been with for close to 21 years and outside of those years I wasn't short on sharing voluntary consensual sex in-between.


----------



## Personal

jld said:


> I do not want my daughter to be used by men.
> 
> I think who pays is a bellwether for that.


Yours is a shallow and erroneous measure of a dating man that doesn't always get the bill.

Back when I was 25, and not long into dating my wife before we were living together. She and I were walking back to her car after enjoying a movie and dinner, where we shared the costs of the evening.

When a speeding car smashed into the couple in front of us, as we were crossing a three lane intersection at a set of traffic lights. When it became apparent to all of us that the car was going to hit us, it was too late to do anything about it.

When this happened it felt like time had slowed down, to the point that the car was moving slowly, yet we were as well. Moving felt incredibly slow and seemed to be tempered by what felt like an incredible weight as well. No matter how slowly those headlights edged closer, I couldn't move fast enough. Then the car hit the couple in front of us in a shower of glass, where they tumbled in the air like rag dolls.

Then car slid from the back end towards my wife and I, yet we couldn't get out of the way. Then it hit her and took her from me and my view. Then the car slowly eased past my stomach, no more than a thumbs width away. Where time seemed to return to normal as it passed me and crashed into a tree on a traffic island. Where for a moment everything seemed so silent as I was the only one left standing in the middle of the road, wearing some of my wife's blood.

Then I saw the driver get out of his car with barely a scratch as he used his mobile phone to call an ambulance.

Moments after that I found my wife face down on the ground in an ever growing pool of blood. Where in the first instance she was unconscious, yet she was breathing and her pulse was okay. Yet the traffic lights then changed and cars started driving towards us, so I put myself in front of her waving them out of the way. Yet some of them still almost hit us.

At the same time a growing crowd of onlookers some of whom had come form a nearby pub had gathered to watch the spectacle. Where none of them did anything to help us. Yet with the cars still coming, I needed to get my wife out of the way and had to move her even if she had spinal injuries.

So I grabbed one of the idle and dragged him to the middle of the road and ordered him to stop the traffic, so I could move my wife without her getting hit again. By that point she was conscious and wanting to know why she was wet, why she was on the road and what we were doing. Then as I carried her to safety, I told her she had been hit by a car as we were crossing the road. Her knees were a mess from where the car had hit her, and her face was smashed and broken from where she hit the road. Fortunately I was able to limit her bleeding and kept her conscious after that.

I then went to find the other couple that were my parents age, who were from New Zealand and had been visiting their daughter who went to a nearby university. I found them both sprawled on the ground in a horrific mess. The woman was unconscious, not responsive, had a pulse and was breathing okay. The man was conscious, not particularly responsive, and had laboured breathing. Both of them had multiple limb fractures, spinal injuries and the woman also suffered from brain damage.

Once I determined they were stable as such, I got the guy who hit us to watch them and tell me if anything changed. I then went back to my wife and started checking on her. She started apologising to me for what had happened and also told me she was cold.

In response I yelled at the non-helping gawkers to give me a blanket, to which some of them said we haven't got a blanket. So I hit them with expletives and told them to find one. Anyway shortly afterwards someone gave me a blanket and I wrapped it around my wife and held her.

I then checked on the other couple as well, yet felt there wasn't much I could do, they were breathing. So not having spinal boards or neck braces I didn't want to move them. and not having any shell dressings I couldn't bandage their wounds.

That said I should have done more for that other couple, I still feel I let them down, I didn't get them blankets. I didn't check to see if the man with laboured bleeding had suffered a penetration that may have caused a sucking chest wound because I didn't think of it. I selfishly spent more time with my wife whoa though seriously injured was not critically injured like them. I feel I didn't control the scene as effectively as I should have.

Then the ambulances arrived and then the police, where once they started treating my wife in the ambulance they thought I wasn't involved but I told them I was her boyfriend. At no point did they offer to look at me, which is fine since I was untouched.


My wife remembers nothing between the car being close and apologising to me afterwards.

I then went with my wife to the hospital were they treated her, then took her back to her place after that. Then without any sleep went to work, because no one was available to fill my shift at the newspaper. Although I wasn't working that well since I felt like I was buzzing with energy and couldn't concentrate on my work. Which is when I noticed my wife's blood was all over my shoes. Which is when I told them I was involved in an accident and asked if they could survive without me for the day.

So I then went back to my wife's place and let her immediate family know what happened to her. Then let our boss know that my wife (we worked together) couldn't come in to work next week because of what happened, at the time no one at work were privy to the fact that we were both dating.

As it turned out my wife's religious Catholic, immediate family had no interest in coming to see if she was alright or offering any help at all. So I asked my boss for leave, where she generously let me take family carers leave even though I wasn't entitled.

Then over the next two weeks despite not dating very long, I helped my wife to eat, go to the toilet, shower, dress and move around.

As my wife started to recover and we went out, I also often got looks of disgust and disdain aimed at me. Since I figure, they somehow thought I was responsible for her terribly cut and bruised face.

Afterwards my wife and I didn't bother seeking compensation, since we were okay. While I acted as a witness for the other couple when they sought compensation. I also turned down the money that their solicitors offered me to cover my attendance, feeling it was the least I could do.


----------



## Robbie1234

Daisy12 said:


> What you might see as a less beautiful girl might be the most beautiful girl in the world to some other guy. Attractiveness is objective as we all have our own tastes.
> 
> True beauty is more than what is on the outside and if I was a 10 but today's standards, I would mostly denfitly think I was shallow to assume that a man has to pay my way because I'm attractive. As I would classify any man as shallow if he thought it was ok to make a woman pay for half the date solely bases on the reason that she was not a 10.
> 
> A true gentleman treats all woman the same, wether they are 9 or 99 or a 10 or a 2.


He was intentionally using her beauty to make his point.


----------



## Robbie1234

Andy1001 said:


> You picked the wrong guy to ask this question to.lol.


You think you are such a hotshot that you can date actresses.You must really love yourself


----------



## Robbie1234

jld said:


> I guess he will have to find a way to deal with his disappointment. She certainly does not owe him anything.
> 
> Actually, that's probably the time to leave any relationship, whether just starting out or established: when you feel pressured to deliver but you don't feel inspired by him at all.


According to you a man has to inspire a woman to keep her happy, what the hell does that mean.Some of your thinking is screwed up


----------



## jld

wild jade said:


> But you seem to be limiting this to a single scenario. A man paying the bill for some "date" activity, or alternatively "sticking" her with the tab
> 
> Let's go a bit deeper. Say it isn't the first date. Say it isn't using an "excuse" of "equal partner". Actually the guy just doesn't make tons of money and she does. Or say he's run into some sort of difficulty: illness, accident, natural disaster. What then?
> 
> Are you actually saying that all guys should always pay all bills regardless of any sort of circumstance? Just because anything else is "using the excuse of equal partner"? What would you do if (god forbid!) your husband was temporarily disabled? Would you suck it up and step in and make it work? I'm betting you would. But what if your husband then couldn't handle it? And he spiralled even further downward because it freaked him out too much to have you actually have any power or say in the relationship?
> 
> Valuing a person isn't, IMHO, about how much money you will drop on this bill or that. Lots of guys will drop all kinds of money on things they don't care a whit about just because they happen to have money. And I will say most certainly and with emphasis that having money does not make one a better person. Nor does it prevent you from abusing another person because you think that all this money and paying of bills should let you dictate how things will be.
> 
> Valuing a person is about seeing them, who they are, caring about them, giving thought to them, not just about picking up a tab.
> 
> Of course, YMMV.


I do not trust men who do not feel financially responsible for their families, jade. 

Yes, if my husband became ill or disabled and could no longer support us, I would have to do it. He is very mentally and emotionally stable. I cannot see him "spiraling down."

My husband has never expected me to contribute financially, in any way.

And yes, he does feel responsible for inspiring me, in nearly every way. He does not feel entitled to sex. He did not feel entitled to children. He understood that a woman needs to feel safe with a man to do those things, and he has endeavored to earn and maintain my trust in him.

I think a lot of women are getting ripped off in life, jade. I would certainly like to see them get a better deal. Not enabling men financially could be a start to that.


----------



## wild jade

jld said:


> I do not trust men who do not feel financially responsible for their families, jade.
> 
> Yes, if my husband became ill or disabled and could no longer support us, I would have to do it. He is very mentally and emotionally stable. I cannot see him "spiraling down."
> 
> My husband has never expected me to contribute financially, in any way.
> 
> And yes, he does feel responsible for inspiring me, in nearly every way. He does not feel entitled to sex. He did not feel entitled to children. He understood that a woman needs to feel safe with a man to do those things, and he has endeavored to earn and maintain my trust in him.
> 
> I think a lot of women are getting ripped off in life, jade. I would certainly like to see them get a better deal. Not enabling men financially could be a start to that.


It sounds like your husband is a wonderful man, jld! Not at all like the ones I was describing. Perhaps you have no experience with such men? If so, lucky you!

I'm only suggesting that finances are but one measure. And not always the best one. I have always contributed financially in my marriage. When I wasn't making that much, it wasn't very much. When I was making a lot, I was the main breadwinner. When my husband was ill, I took on the responsibility for all of it.

In the end, what was important (to me at any rate) was my husband's unwavering belief in me and the many many different ways he encouraged me in the pursuit of my dreams. And I do my best to return that favor. 

Dating is trickier, of course, because you don't know the person and haven't invested yet. That's why I was agreeing with you earlier that I want to see real signs that a guy is genuinely interested in me before I get myself involved in any way. I've made that mistake before, where I've gone after a guy only to set myself up for being treated poorly, and I won't do that to myself again. 

But I also won't date a guy just because he pays bills. And I will never risk being treated poorly by a guy who thinks paying the bills entitles him to call all the shots.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I do not trust men who do not feel financially responsible for their families, jade.
> 
> *I think a lot of women are getting ripped off in life, jade. I would certainly like to see them get a better deal. Not enabling men financially could be a start to that.*


Maybe you can expand on the bolded since you seem to paint a rather negative POV on men. Exactly how are women getting ripped off?

Also, what exactly do you mean about enabling men financially, how is it being done currently?


----------



## wild jade

Wow. @Personal that was some story. I'm glad the ending was happy. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Personal

Thanks @wild jade, fortunately we were very lucky that night all while we were unlucky as well.


----------



## jld

wild jade said:


> It sounds like your husband is a wonderful man, jld! Not at all like the ones I was describing. Perhaps you have no experience with such men? If so, lucky you!
> 
> I'm only suggesting that finances are but one measure. And not always the best one. I have always contributed financially in my marriage. When I wasn't making that much, it wasn't very much. When I was making a lot, I was the main breadwinner. When my husband was ill, I took on the responsibility for all of it.
> 
> In the end, what was important (to me at any rate) was my husband's unwavering belief in me and the many many different ways he encouraged me in the pursuit of my dreams. And I do my best to return that favor.
> 
> Dating is trickier, of course, because you don't know the person and haven't invested yet. That's why I was agreeing with you earlier that I want to see real signs that a guy is genuinely interested in me before I get myself involved in any way. I've made that mistake before, where I've gone after a guy only to set myself up for being treated poorly, and I won't do that to myself again.
> 
> But I also won't date a guy just because he pays bills. And I will never risk being treated poorly by a guy who thinks paying the bills entitles him to call all the shots.


I certainly agree with that, jade. In my younger days I walked away from a man who could have undoubtedly provided more financially than Dug probably ever could. But it was not worth it to me. One of the wisest decisions I ever made . . . even though it caused my mother much anguish.

Dug is a very good man. Not a perfect man, but a very good one.

I would like all women to be able to be with a very good man, jade. I saw my older sisters struggle a lot in their marriages. They were with very selfish men. That is not what I want for any woman.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Maybe you can expand on the bolded since you seem to paint a rather negative POV on men. Exactly how are women getting ripped off?
> 
> Also, what exactly do you mean about enabling men financially, how is it being done currently?


Several of my sisters would've liked to have been stay at home moms. But their husbands wanted them to work, so that their husbands could continue to engage in expensive hobbies. 

My sisters wanted to stay married, so they acquiesced to their husbands.

Now, you could certainly make the argument that their children had certain advantages from growing up in a two parent, intact family. But I am not convinced that everything they saw in those families, including the values of the fathers, was a good example for them.


----------



## Bananapeel

Faithful Wife said:


> Hi jld
> 
> So there's a little more to this nuance, and again I have not read the whole thread so I apologize if these points were already made...
> 
> First of all, there are lots of reasons people date, there are many different dating goals. Here are a few examples or goals:
> 
> *to find a true love and live happily ever after
> 
> *just to get laid, with no attachments (whether they inform the other person of this or not)
> 
> *to find a boyfriend or girlfriend, not looking for forever (young people and divorced people especially) (and another caveat is that boy/girlfriend is a loose term and can mean a lot or a little commitment to different people, and it may not even mean sexual exclusivity to some people)
> 
> *to have fun dating, if something develops then great, if not, I still had fun dating
> 
> 
> 
> So the way you date and how you behave is different when you have different goals. And the way you find dates is different as well.


I agree 100% with this and know exactly where I fit in the above reasons to date. 

Another thing to consider is that people's attitudes towards dating is somewhat influenced by how successful they were. If you are inherently successful in dating (i.e. easily find people you have fun going out with) then your desire to spend money is probably going to be higher than people that historically have a harder time (i.e. find that a lot of the people they date are a let down). I've always liked dating and overall had very good experiences, which has definitely influenced my dating style.


----------



## Robbie1234

jld said:


> I do not trust men who do not feel financially responsible for their families, jade.
> 
> Yes, if my husband became ill or disabled and could no longer support us, I would have to do it. He is very mentally and emotionally stable. I cannot see him "spiraling down."
> 
> My husband has never expected me to contribute financially, in any way.
> 
> And yes, he does feel responsible for inspiring me, in nearly every way. He does not feel entitled to sex. He did not feel entitled to children. He understood that a woman needs to feel safe with a man to do those things, and he has endeavored to earn and maintain my trust in him.
> 
> I think a lot of women are getting ripped off in life, jade. I would certainly like to see them get a better deal. Not enabling men financially could be a start to that.


There are a lot more men getting ripped off by cheating women.The woman nearly allways stay in the family home even if they are the ones that cheat? What do you want from a man who has to inspire you and earn your trust


----------



## Bananapeel

Robbie1234 said:


> There are a lot more men getting ripped off by cheating women.The woman nearly allways stay in the family home even if they are the ones that cheat? What do you want from a man who has to inspire you and earn your trust


Just playing devil's advocate here. But as a man, if we understand that women of this era are more likely to not take their marriage vows seriously than in the past, then the best way to prevent them from cheating is to inspire them. Incidentally, the best way to prevent getting screwed over from a divorce is to not commit and marry in the first place (followed closely by a damn good pre-nup if you decide to marry)...but that's a topic for another thread.


----------



## Kivlor

Bananapeel said:


> Just playing devil's advocate here. But as a man, if we understand that women of this era are more likely to not take their marriage vows seriously than in the past, then the best way to prevent them from cheating is to inspire them. Incidentally, the best way to prevent getting screwed over from a divorce is to not commit and marry in the first place (followed closely by a damn good pre-nup if you decide to marry)...but that's a topic for another thread.


If it is the case that women are less likely to take their promises seriously, then it would seem that you should avoid women, because you have admitted that they can't be expected to keep their word.

This seems like an argument against marriage.


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> Several of my sisters would've liked to have been stay at home moms. But their husbands wanted them to work, so that their husbands could continue to engage in expensive hobbies.
> 
> My sisters wanted to stay married, so they acquiesced to their husbands.
> 
> Now, you could certainly make the argument that their children had certain advantages from growing up in a two parent, intact family. But I am not convinced that everything they saw in those families, including the values of the fathers, was a good example for them.


*Did your sisters complain about their husbands and the expensive hobbies? Or is this your perception of the situations, as an "outsider" looking in? Did your sisters have any hobbies, expensive or otherwise, that the added finances helped fund?*

I ask this because of my own sisters' situations. One stays home and has been homeschooling her daughter. And, though she is doing well academically, she is lacking in many other areas. Her husband works, and he absolutely takes the lead. However, knowing my sister as well as I do... she is the biggest problem in their relationship, not him. He does all the things you suggest are great qualities in a man - lead the relationship/family, take care of everything, etc. Yet, they have problems which should, according to your line of thinking, work. I'm honestly not saying this to "slam" you, but to point out that even when someone follows what you suggest, the results can be different from what you expect... And not because the man isn't doing what you think he should, but because the woman is pushing back, against him... against his leading. This is why many of us, both men and women, get upset when you place the burden of marital/relationship issues on the man. You cannot do that. They are in this together. 

As for my other sister, she stated many times that she would have preferred being a SAHM, but worked outside the home out of necessity. Her husband works, but his income alone is not enough to cover all the bills. She hated her previous job, but LOVES her current one. Neither of them has expensive hobbies. 

Of the two, do you know which one complains regularly? The first one. So, I would say tgat it varies from couple to couple. What works for you likely will not work for me. What works for me wouldn't work for my neighbor. 

But I really am curious about your sister's, as bolded above in my response.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## Bananapeel

@Kivlor I was just playing devil's advocate. I don't want to threadjack here.


----------



## Kivlor

Bananapeel said:


> @Kivlor I was just playing devil's advocate. I don't want to threadjack here.


I know. I was just providing another light in which to consider your post. 

End T/J


----------



## jld

Maricha75 said:


> *Did your sisters complain about their husbands and the expensive hobbies? Or is this your perception of the situations, as an "outsider" looking in? Did your sisters have any hobbies, expensive or otherwise, that the added finances helped fund?*
> 
> I ask this because of my own sisters' situations. One stays home and has been homeschooling her daughter. And, though she is doing well academically, she is lacking in many other areas. Her husband works, and he absolutely takes the lead. However, knowing my sister as well as I do... she is the biggest problem in their relationship, not him. He does all the things you suggest are great qualities in a man - lead the relationship/family, take care of everything, etc. Yet, they have problems which should, according to your line of thinking, work. I'm honestly not saying this to "slam" you, but to point out that even when someone follows what you suggest, the results can be different from what you expect... And not because the man isn't doing what you think he should, but because the woman is pushing back, against him... against his leading. This is why many of us, both men and women, get upset when you place the burden of marital/relationship issues on the man. You cannot do that. They are in this together.
> 
> As for my other sister, she stated many times that she would have preferred being a SAHM, but worked outside the home out of necessity. Her husband works, but his income alone is not enough to cover all the bills. She hated her previous job, but LOVES her current one. Neither of them has expensive hobbies.
> 
> Of the two, do you know which one complains regularly? The first one. So, I would say tgat it varies from couple to couple. What works for you likely will not work for me. What works for me wouldn't work for my neighbor.
> 
> But I really am curious about your sister's, as bolded above in my response.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


No, no expensive hobbies. My sisters were very frugal and wanted to live family-focused lives.

It is unfortunate your bil is unable to inspire his wife. He may have married the wrong woman.

It does not change my philosophy, however.


----------



## Fozzy

Faithful Wife said:


> As for the other things...opening doors, being a gentleman in general, putting me on the inside of the sidewalk furthest away from the road, handling interactions with other people to give me the best hassle free date experience, complimenting my attire for the date, and just generally acting like a great guy....this I have come to expect. If a guy doesn't have all of these things (and so many more subtle parts to it that I just can't list them all) then I won't be interested in him. The thing with opening doors is just something I enjoy, it makes me feel cared for and feminine. I do things in return that make my date feel masculine and admired.
> 
> These things don't seem related to paying for dates, to me.


Many of these things aren't related to dating at all. They're just being a good person. I walk my children on the inside of the sidewalk. I hold the door and elevator for strangers (even for dudes). I help lift heavy things for people that are struggling.

It's not about entitlements or narratives for me. I'm just trying to be a good person.

Unless I don't like you. Then you can open your own damn door.


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> No, no expensive hobbies. My sisters were very frugal and wanted to live family-focused lives.
> 
> It is unfortunate your bil is unable to inspire his wife. He may have married the wrong woman.
> 
> It does not change my philosophy, however.


I can understand that you feel that way. Tbh, we all question why they married. It isn't because he "is unable to inspire" her, though. It is because we know our sister. 

But, thinking more on this... I have one question about what you mean by inspiring her. Inspire her to be a better person? To be a better wife? To be a better person? If you mean any of those things, I am sorry, but that has to come from within my sister. The only thing he can do is be the man he is, and improve on things that he needs (always room for improvement in everyone). But she has to do for herself, too.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Maricha75 said:


> I can understand that you feel that way. Tbh, we all question why they married. It isn't because he "is unable to inspire" her, though. It is because we know our sister.
> 
> But, thinking more on this... I have one question about what you mean by inspiring her. Inspire her to be a better person? To be a better wife? To be a better person? If you mean any of those things, I am sorry, but that has to come from within my sister. The only thing he can do is be the man he is, and improve on things that he needs (always room for improvement in everyone). But she has to do for herself, too.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


His own example is certainly important. 

He can also inspire her by being empathetic to her thoughts and concerns. Feeling listened to and understood usually builds trust.


----------



## EllisRedding

Maricha75 said:


> I can understand that you feel that way. Tbh, we all question why they married. It isn't because he "is unable to inspire" her, though. It is because we know our sister.
> 
> But, thinking more on this... I have one question about what you mean by inspiring her. Inspire her to be a better person? To be a better wife? To be a better person? If you mean any of those things, I am sorry, but that has to come from within my sister. The only thing he can do is be the man he is, and improve on things that he needs (always room for improvement in everyone). But she has to do for herself, too.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


I think the difference Maricha, you seem to advocate the concept of personal responsibility/accountability within a relationship (who wouldn't want this...). The other side, the "he must inspire her" side, falls more in line with a daddy/daughter type relationship. Of course this type of relationship works for some, especially if they want to minimize the responsibility they have towards their partner in a relationship.


----------



## Maricha75

EllisRedding said:


> I think the difference Maricha, you seem to advocate the concept of personal responsibility/accountability within a relationship (who wouldn't want this...). The other side, the "he must inspire her" side, falls more in line with a daddy/daughter type relationship. Of course this type of relationship works for some, especially if they want to minimize the responsibility they have towards their partner in a relationship.


Yea, that's what I was thinking, too. The thing is, my brother-in-law does listen to her, and he takes her concerns to heart each time. And each time, she becomes more demanding. So, "inspiration" does not work for their marriage. My sister is demanding, self-centered, and spoiled. Tbh, my otger sister and I cannot fathom how we have the same parents... At this point, we often wish her husband had been our brother, instead!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding

Maricha75 said:


> Yea, that's what I was thinking, too. The thing is, my brother-in-law does listen to her, and he takes her concerns to heart each time. And each time, she becomes more demanding. So, "inspiration" does not work for their marriage. My sister is demanding, self-centered, and spoiled. Tbh, my otger sister and I cannot fathom how we have the same parents... At this point, we often wish her husband had been our brother, instead!
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


Do you think he maybe falls under the "nice guy" category? Based on how you describe your sister, that makes him easy picking, and she has very little incentive to actually change?


----------



## Maricha75

EllisRedding said:


> Do you think he maybe falls under the "nice guy" category? Based on how you describe your sister, that makes him easy picking, and she has very little incentive to actually change?


Quite possibly. But I hesitate to label him as such because of how they are viewed here. And, he may very well have been an easy target for her. How sad is that? Seeing my sister in that light. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## Livvie

Do you think he realized what she was like before they married?


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Several of my sisters would've liked to have been stay at home moms. But their husbands wanted them to work, so that their husbands could continue to engage in expensive hobbies.
> 
> My sisters wanted to stay married, so they acquiesced to their husbands.
> 
> Now, you could certainly make the argument that their children had certain advantages from growing up in a two parent, intact family. But I am not convinced that everything they saw in those families, including the values of the fathers, was a good example for them.


Quite possible that they didn't inspire that security in their husbands. Many husbands could and should feel worried about the stay at home spouse taking advantage in today's society.


----------



## Maricha75

Livvie said:


> Do you think he realized what she was like before they married?


You didn't quote, so I am guessing you mean my sister and brother-in-law? I can almost guarantee he didn't know. She put on a façade while they were dating and engaged. A few months after marrying, that dropped. People often talk about how the sex drops,off after marriage. Not the case with them, surprisingly. But her attitude changed toward him, for sure. 

Oh, and while they were dating? He was the one who spent more money, not her. He wasn't doing it to show off, it was just how he was raised. My sister was raised the same way I was, so I have no idea how she ended up the way she did. But, she is very entitled. I truly do not believe any sort of "inspiring" will reach her with that attitude.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Quite possible that they didn't inspire that security in their husbands. Many husbands could and should feel worried about the stay at home spouse taking advantage in today's society.


Well, if they ever did think that, it was all in their heads.

The bottom line is that my sisters did not marry wisely. And paid the price for that.


----------



## lovelygirl

@jld and @Maricha75, please try to remain on topic. Talking about jld's sisters belongs to another thread.

Thank you.


----------



## lovelygirl

Faithful Wife said:


> And because of this, I ended up viewing first dates as something more like an interview*. I love interviews too actually! * *We were mutually interviewing* each other for a certain position in each other's lives. It is no one's fault that most of the time this doesn't turn into a second date, and frankly, I wasn't asking any of these guys to try to win me over or show me what he is really made of. I didn't even want that, I just wanted a friendly, no strings meet up, the same as I might do to meet a new consultant I was considering hiring for a special type of job. In a case like that I would happily pick up the tab to have lunch with said potential consultant.
> 
> In the end, I had many GREAT dates, and a couple of those did turn into a little or a lot more.
> 
> But let's say that a man noticed me somewhere and approached me, talked me up, was clearly interested in me, found out I was single, asked for my number and said he would love to take me to dinner sometime. Let's just say further that this man's dating goal is to find a life partner. This has happened to me before, but it is rare. In this type of case, every man who did this planned a great date and paid for everything (and I did not interfere).
> 
> This guy I've just described is a whole lot different than the online daters I mentioned above, specifically men who are also burning through a lot of first dates. Your approach is a lot different when you know you are just weeding through people in order to find someone for these (somewhat limited) specific dating goals. Guys who also aren't looking for "the one" who are a match for me, are way more able and ready to be flattered and happy if/when a woman reaches for the check. But the guy whose goal it was to have a life partner and who was truly interested at first sight in a woman, he is more likely to refuse the very thought of her paying (this is not strictly true however).
> 
> In all of the first dates I've had where I paid the check, not one of these guys EVER tried to hand me the check. None of them even expected it, actually. Every one of them was more or less stunned a little by it, and all of them said "ok but I'm getting the next one". Keep in mind, these are very casual dates, sometimes just coffee, with very low expectations of a relationship coming out of it. (Not that I wouldn't pay for a great steak for a guy on a date and I have....but never a first date).


Interesting viewpoints, @Faithful Wife ! I had never thought dates as interviews, but then again...I don't do mass-dating or frequent dating. When you casually date several people a month and most dates end after a 2nd date..then it could be seen like some sort of interview, especially when you don't focus only on one guy. 
Sure, you can't expect to be paid by all the guys and sometimes, to set yourself free from him (if you didn't like him) then you pay for him and say goodbye! ha! 

I should use that method sometimes. :wink2:


----------



## Maricha75

lovelygirl said:


> @jld and @Maricha75, please try to remain on topic. Talking about jld's sisters belongs to another thread.
> 
> Thank you.


That was hours ago, and from my vantage point, tied into a point of view regarding their husbands. It also, to me, gave potential insight into how her sisters and brothers-in-law behaved during dating/courtship. But, thank you. I had no intention of revisiting the subject.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Well, if they ever did think that*, it was all in their heads.*
> 
> The bottom line is that my sisters did not marry wisely. And paid the price for that.


same as only if men pay are they worthy. 

Probably didn't treat them that great.


----------



## jld

lovelygirl said:


> @jld and @Maricha75, please try to remain on topic. Talking about jld's sisters belongs to another thread.
> 
> Thank you.


Sorry about that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> Sounds like this guy needs some confidence in himself.


I look at this a little different.. some men may REALLY be into a certain girl.. and maybe niave to think his being good to her can win her over.. is this a blight on a man? .. I really don't think so.. Good man are willing to take that risk.. Having 5 sons.. I sure don't want to see them bending over backwards for a user... but then again.. When a man is into a woman. .he will try,. go that extra mile...

I shouldn't say this. .but I easily could have USED my husband when we were younger and thrown him to the curb.. I will admit his being so kind to me, surely played a part in me seeing him as a Keeper.. I wasn't a user.. but what if I was ?? 

Would this render him as lacking confidence and a fool for trying, for being who he was .... that older fashioned type?


----------



## heartsbeating

I love those moments when expecting the bill to arrive but instead there's movement and body language of the company you're with, indicating it's time to leave and being told 'It's already taken care of...' 

My husband was the first person I'd experienced this with.

It's something I've done too, with family or friends. 

If I was in a parallel dimension, I don't know if I'd necessarily 'expect' a date to pay however I would notice if he didn't - not all the time, granted, but I guess (for some reason, now) there's a part of me that would consider it chivalrous. Heck I even like it with friends. A girlfriend takes care of coffee, just because, and I might pick up breakfast another time, and so it goes. 

Although if I insisted to pay, I would expect my intention to match what was being offered.


----------



## EllisRedding

Let's assume that part of the whole "guy paying" concept is b/c historically men have for the most part been the breadwinners or the money earners (i.e. put the whole chivalry concept aside), so a man had to showcase his "earnings power" in order to woo the female. Even if things progressed in the relationship (i.e. married, family, etc...), financially providing support was his responsibility. I think this is why now you see the whole "who should pay" debate happening, since more and more females are earning on par or beyond what their male counterpart earns. Should this now be taken into account? Is there a point where, even if the male decides to pay at the start, that eventually the female is expected to contribute her share?

I know a few females here have stated that they wouldn't trust a guy who didn't pay (whether this reflected his "trustworthiness" or his level of interest). On the other side, if I was on the dating scene now (don't ever seeing this happen again), I would be very concerned about a female who would willingly expect me to pay for everything, especially if she had her own career, b/c this could show that her interest could be of a more materialistic nature.


----------



## NextTimeAround

SimplyAmorous said:


> I look at this a little different.. some men may REALLY be into a certain girl.. and maybe niave to think his being good to her can win her over.. is this a blight on a man? .. I really don't think so.. Good man are willing to take that risk.. Having 5 sons.. I sure don't want to see them bending over backwards for a user... but then again.. When a man is into a woman. .he will try,. go that extra mile...
> 
> I shouldn't say this. .but I easily could have USED my husband when we were younger and thrown him to the curb.. I will admit his being so kind to me, surely played a part in me seeing him as a Keeper.. I wasn't a user.. but what if I was ??
> 
> Would this render him as lacking confidence and a fool for trying, for being who he was .... that older fashioned type?


IF I had sons, I would be worried too. The problem here is that a lot of men love the thrill of the chase and the challenge. A woman who pays her own way is viewed as desperate and does not know her own worth. 

A woman who requires the man to ante up is viewed as someone who has options (kind of like the CEO who requires an 8 figure compensation package -- and gets it -, because of course, he could go elsewhere.....) and therefore, more exciting.

Sadly, it's been my experience that when I have been open to sharing expenses with a guy that he turns around and spends that money saved on someone else. Just seems to me that when you have some extra money, you don't spend it on that female "friend" you only see from time to time. Seems like you would give a pleasant surprise to the one who has faithfully supported you. 

I can almost hear the men saying now "I had to pay for her because I don't see her that often." I guess that means I need to see that guy less as well. That was certainly what I told my future husband when I compared his treatment of me to that of his special friend. "At least," I said, " she still has the freedom to date and have sex with other men while you are wining and dining her (when you see her once every couple of months." 

In the UK, there is the expression "Start off as you intend to continue." That only encourages women to be tough -- financially, at least -- on guys. 

These days, more confident, I don't mind saying out loud that "when you expect me to turn down dates with other men and to coordinate my free time with you, then I expect you to treat me better than any other unrelated woman that you know (and even some related ones, cousins don't have much standing here, for example. In the state of NY you can still marry a first cousin.......)

so maybe men shoot themselves in their own feet. Is it really impossible to get excited over a woman who does not crack the financial whip?


----------



## MrsAldi

Maybe the solution for this problem is have a date where money isn't required, like going for a walk. 

Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


----------



## NextTimeAround

MrsAldi said:


> Maybe the solution for this problem is have a date where money isn't required, like going for a walk.
> 
> Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


Tell me how would you feel if you found out that that same guy treated another woman to dinner for the first date?


----------



## EllisRedding

NextTimeAround said:


> Tell me how would you feel if you found out that that same guy treated another woman to dinner for the first date?


IMO it is a problem if you are already looking for validation at that point (i.e. he/she did such and such for someone else, anything less for me means I am not worth it).


----------



## NextTimeAround

EllisRedding said:


> IMO it is a problem if you are already looking for validation at that point (i.e. he/she did such and such for someone else, anything less for me means I am not worth it).


Maybe, but that is probably what that could mean. And it might also mean, that it's all downhill from there.


----------



## MrsAldi

NextTimeAround said:


> Tell me how would you feel if you found out that that same guy treated another woman to dinner for the first date?


It wouldn't matter to me, it's just food! 

The majority reason women expect men to pay on dates is because it's a test to see if the guy is cheap or not, it's a future husband test to see if he's a reliable gentleman. Most men know by now that if they pay they will get in the women's good books and may even get sex that night. 

If I should magically become single again, I wouldn't do the cliché dinner date, I would do the walk. He would have to woo me with more than his wallet!  

Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding

NextTimeAround said:


> Maybe, but that is probably what that could mean. And it might also mean, that it's all downhill from there.


Yes and no. Maybe the guy has gotten burned in the past, and found an option just like @MrsAldi pointed out would be a better way to get to the know the person. After all, if she wasn't receptive to this, expected to be wined/dined, that could be a warning sign as well to him ... All a matter of perspective. The focus should be on getting to know the person, not where is he taking me and how much is he willing to spend.


----------



## bloovie

A real gentleman should pay or not invite for a dinner.


----------



## MrsAldi

EllisRedding said:


> The focus should be on getting to know the person.


Exactly, just because a man pays for dates doesn't actually prove that he will be reliable and trustworthy in the future.

I have friends who do online dating, some men on there are real players, they wine and dine and say all the right things for sex, then dump the women. They're players and they know the game.


----------



## uhtred

I find this whole conversation really confusing. Dinner doesn't cost enough to worry about - or if it does, they you are not going to the right restaurant. If what you can comfortably afford is the inexpensive family run Chinese place down the block, then go there. If that is too much, invite your date for a picnic and make sandwiches. 

I don't think it ever makes sense to invite someone to a date that is so expensive that you care who pays. 

Offer to pay. If they don't want you to pay, then split. If they honestly want to pay, then let them and thank them - but of course nothing beyond a "thank you" is owed. 

The point of a date should be meeting someone, talking with them, getting to know them, not eating fancy food.


----------



## EllisRedding

uhtred said:


> I find this whole conversation really confusing. Dinner doesn't cost enough to worry about - or if it does, they you are not going to the right restaurant. If what you can comfortably afford is the inexpensive family run Chinese place down the block, then go there. If that is too much, invite your date for a picnic and make sandwiches.
> 
> I don't think it ever makes sense to invite someone to a date that is so expensive that you care who pays.
> 
> Offer to pay. If they don't want you to pay, then split. If they honestly want to pay, then let them and thank them - but of course nothing beyond a "thank you" is owed.
> 
> The point of a date should be meeting someone, talking with them, getting to know them, not eating fancy food.


Unfortunately you see it from both sides (male and female) where the place you take them is just as important as getting to actually know the person ...


----------



## Andy1001

NextTimeAround said:


> Maybe, but that is probably what that could mean. And it might also mean, that it's all downhill from there.


Ok try it from this point of view.You date a girl for a few weeks or more and she doesn't sleep with you.Then you find out she slept with her previous guys on the third date.Would you still be so diplomatic about it.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Andy1001 said:


> Ok try it from this point of view.You date a girl for a few weeks or more and she doesn't sleep with you.Then you find out she slept with her previous guys on the third date.Would you still be so diplomatic about it.


I agree that if that is important to you, then you need to figure out some indicator for you on how to proceed. And quite honestly, I don't know what to suggest.

In my situation, I look at :

1. the guy's ability to pay - my niece who is dating a guy who works at Gold man Sachs told me that for Xmas, he gave her something that costs USD2,500. Well, if you were a date before or after that and with that information, how might you interpret the date that you had with this guy.

2. how he treats women on the same level as the type of relationship that you are having with this guy. If you want me to be exclusive to you, then you can't be any more generous to another women than you are to me. If you expect me to pay for my own transport....... / to pay for myself / .... at the same time that you expect me to turn down other dates and so on

*As a man, what do you look at when assessing the dating prospective of a woman....... the sad fact of the matter, IMO, is that you may be looking at how hot other men find her.........
*

OTOH, if I am wrong, this a great opportunity to discuss exactly what (some) men do look for in a woman.......


----------



## Andy1001

NextTimeAround said:


> I agree that if that is important to you, then you need to figure out some indicator for you on how to proceed. And quite honestly, I don't know what to suggest.
> 
> In my situation, I look at :
> 
> 1. the guy's ability to pay - my niece who is dating a guy who works at Gold man Sachs told me that for Xmas, he gave her something that costs USD2,500. Well, if you were a date before or after that and with that information, how might you interpret the date that you had with this guy.
> 
> 2. how he treats women on the same level as the type of relationship that you are having with this guy. If you want me to be exclusive to you, then you can't be any more generous to another women than you are to me. If you expect me to pay for my own transport....... / to pay for myself / .... at the same time that you expect me to turn down other dates and so on
> 
> *As a man, what do you look at when assessing the dating prospective of a woman....... the sad fact of the matter, IMO, is that you may be looking at how hot other men find her.........
> *
> 
> OTOH, if I am wrong, this a great opportunity to discuss exactly what (some) men do look for in a woman.......


Sorry, I meant to quote EllisRedding and accidentally quoted you.I was making the point that the poster disregarded your comment about how would a woman feel if brought for a walk when his previous date was brought to dinner.As for dates,I have been exclusively dating my gf for almost six years and she gave birth last week so I won't be on the dating scene any time soon lol.
When I was dating I always went for the most beautiful girls I could get and I have to admit I did well in that regard,but it was a case of being in the right place at the right time.My house mates were often involved in the fashion industry and you know what type of girl you meet at fashion shows.


----------



## EllisRedding

Andy1001 said:


> Ok try it from this point of view.You date a girl for a few weeks or more and she doesn't sleep with you.Then you find out she slept with her previous guys on the third date.Would you still be so diplomatic about it.


Since it sounds like you were asking me this, I would be ok with. You can't just assume all circumstances are the same.


----------



## musicftw07

Andy1001 said:


> NextTimeAround said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but that is probably what that could mean. And it might also mean, that it's all downhill from there.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok try it from this point of view.You date a girl for a few weeks or more and she doesn't sleep with you.Then you find out she slept with her previous guys on the third date.Would you still be so diplomatic about it.
Click to expand...

Speaking for me and not other poster, sure I'd be diplomatic about it.

Maybe she views me as possible better relationship material, so she doesn't want to seem easy by sleeping with me so soon.

Maybe she had one too many bad experiences having sex so early with those men and is trying to make different choices.

Maybe she's fighting a bad yeast infection, or she's having a particularly long period, or some other legitimate issue with her female parts that makes sex unfeasible at that time.

My point is, I don't have all the details. I'm not going to look at her prior scorecard to ensure every box is ticked at the exact same time, because we're two different people in a new dynamic. What I *will* look for is respectful behavior, indications my interest is returned, enthusiasm for spending time with me, and an interest in getting to know me better.

Whether or not I get sex a few weeks later than her prior dates did is totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Andy1001

musicftw07 said:


> Speaking for me and not other poster, sure I'd be diplomatic about it.
> 
> Maybe she views me as possible better relationship material, so she doesn't want to seem easy by sleeping with me so soon.
> 
> Maybe she had one too many bad experiences having sex so early with those men and is trying to make different choices.
> 
> Maybe she's fighting a bad yeast infection, or she's having a particularly long period, or some other legitimate issue with her female parts that makes sex unfeasible at that time.
> 
> My point is, I don't have all the details. I'm not going to look at her prior scorecard to ensure every box is ticked at the exact same time, because we're two different people in a new dynamic. What I *will* look for is respectful behavior, indications my interest is returned, enthusiasm for spending time with me, and an interest in getting to know me better.
> 
> Whether or not I get sex a few weeks later than her prior dates did is totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.


Well that's where we differ.When I was in the dating game I saw it as a means to an end,the end being us having sex.And I have to say most of my acquaintances looked on it the same.Maybe it's an age thing,I haven't asked a woman to dinner other than my gf in six years and I was twenty seven when we started dating.Mind you she made me wait more than three dates! Lol.


----------



## musicftw07

Andy1001 said:


> musicftw07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking for me and not other poster, sure I'd be diplomatic about it.
> 
> Maybe she views me as possible better relationship material, so she doesn't want to seem easy by sleeping with me so soon.
> 
> Maybe she had one too many bad experiences having sex so early with those men and is trying to make different choices.
> 
> Maybe she's fighting a bad yeast infection, or she's having a particularly long period, or some other legitimate issue with her female parts that makes sex unfeasible at that time.
> 
> My point is, I don't have all the details. I'm not going to look at her prior scorecard to ensure every box is ticked at the exact same time, because we're two different people in a new dynamic. What I *will* look for is respectful behavior, indications my interest is returned, enthusiasm for spending time with me, and an interest in getting to know me better.
> 
> Whether or not I get sex a few weeks later than her prior dates did is totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's where we differ.When I was in the dating game I saw it as a means to an end,the end being us having sex.And I have to say most of my acquaintances looked on it the same.Maybe it's an age thing,I haven't asked a woman to dinner other than my gf in six years and I was twenty seven when we started dating.Mind you she made me wait more than three dates! Lol.
Click to expand...

I think that depends on one's motive for dating in the first place. Are you looking for sex or a relationship?

Whenever I dated I was almost always looking for a relationship. Waiting for the sex never bothered me, because I followed a very strict rule: "Don't stick your d!Ck in crazy." It typically takes more than three dates to determine if the crazy exists, and to what degree.

FWB was always easy to come by and took no effort at all.


----------



## Bananapeel

Andy1001 said:


> Ok try it from this point of view.You date a girl for a few weeks or more and she doesn't sleep with you.Then you find out she slept with her previous guys on the third date.Would you still be so diplomatic about it.


I know this wasn't addressed to me, but.... I personally don't compare myself to a woman's past relationships and never really cared what her history was. Instead I look at it as a clean slate. If she didn't want to have sex at the same time frame I did, then I'd just figure we weren't compatible and move on. 

It would be the same thing for paying for dinner, if the roles were reversed. I'd just care about whether my needs were being met in the relationship and not what happened with previous relationships that I didn't know the nuances on. 

I don't anticipate that I'll ever be in those situations though because I do not usually talk with women about previous guys they've dated since it comes off as insecure (and I'm very secure/confident). So I'd never know how long they waited.


----------



## Andy1001

musicftw07 said:


> I think that depends on one's motive for dating in the first place. Are you looking for sex or a relationship?
> 
> Whenever I dated I was almost always looking for a relationship. Waiting for the sex never bothered me, because I followed a very strict rule: "Don't stick your d!Ck in crazy." It typically takes more than three dates to determine if the crazy exists, and to what degree.
> 
> FWB was always easy to come by and took no effort at all.


That's a good line don't stick your **** in crazy.Lmfao.
I never wanted a relationship, all I wanted was to have fun with a pretty girl and as much sex as I could get.I honestly never got emotionally involved with anyone until I met my current gf and I didnt have the experience to cope with feelings of love,they were totally alien to me.But I'm trying my best.


----------



## Andy1001

Bananapeel said:


> I know this wasn't addressed to me, but.... I personally don't compare myself to a woman's past relationships and never really cared what her history was. Instead I look at it as a clean slate. If she didn't want to have sex at the same time frame I did, then I'd just figure we weren't compatible and move on.
> 
> It would be the same thing for paying for dinner, if the roles were reversed. I'd just care about whether my needs were being met in the relationship and not what happened with previous relationships that I didn't know the nuances on.
> 
> I don't anticipate that I'll ever be in those situations though because I do not usually talk with women about previous guys they've dated since it comes off as insecure (and I'm very secure/confident). So I'd never know how long they waited.


I was using the analogy because the question was asked about the comparison of bringing one date for a walk and another to dinner.I agree with you about previous relationships,I couldn't have cared less about my dates history.I was concerned with my chances of scoring not anyone else's.


----------



## lovelygirl

heartsbeating said:


> I love those moments when expecting the bill to arrive but instead there's movement and body language of the company you're with, indicating it's time to leave and being told *'It's already taken care of...'
> *
> My husband was the first person I'd experienced this with.
> 
> It's something I've done too, with family or friends.
> 
> If I was in a parallel dimension, I don't know if I'd necessarily 'expect' a date to pay however I would notice if he didn't - not all the time, granted, but I guess (for some reason, now) there's a part of me that would consider it chivalrous. Heck I even like it with friends. A girlfriend takes care of coffee, just because, and I might pick up breakfast another time, and so it goes.
> 
> Although if I insisted to pay, I would expect my intention to match what was being offered.


Super amazing! Just like you said, I love it when even friends do it and I'd feel pleased to do the same next time. 
This type of behavior has got so much class, (especially when accompanied by "_it's already been taken care of..._" expression!


----------



## lovelygirl

EllisRedding said:


> I know a few females here have stated that they wouldn't trust a guy who didn't pay (whether this reflected his "trustworthiness" or his level of interest). On the other side, if I was on the dating scene now (don't ever seeing this happen again), I would be very concerned about a female who would willingly expect me to pay for everything, especially if she had her own career, b/c this could show that her interest could be of a more materialistic nature.


As I previously said, it's not always related to the "breadwinner" concept. It's more related to the chivalry of a man.
Even if the girl is richer/earns more than the man, I'd still be turned on by the man paying. (not every single time obviously, but most times ..)


----------



## lovelygirl

MrsAldi said:


> It wouldn't matter to me, it's just food!
> 
> The majority reason women expect men to pay on dates is because it's a test to see if the guy is cheap or not, it's a future husband test to see if he's a reliable gentleman. Most men know by now that if they pay they will get in the women's good books and may even get sex that night.
> 
> If I should magically become single again, I wouldn't do the cliché dinner date, I would do the walk. He would have to woo me with more than his wallet!
> 
> Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


Yeah, but not all dates are about walking. In most dates, you'll have to pay. 
Walking and walking ...an only walking...gets boring. 

Also, you said "it's not about food". Obviously, it's not about food but *it's about the double standard that he's using.* That's the problem, not the food itself.


----------



## Andy1001

lovelygirl said:


> As I previously said, it's not always related to the "breadwinner" concept. It's more related to the chivalry of a man.
> Even if the girl is richer/earns more than the man, I'd still be turned on by the man paying. (not every single time obviously, but most times ..)


If finances are a problem I can see why some men prefer to go Dutch.But if it's not a concern then in my opinion the man should pay.Always.


----------



## lovelygirl

Andy1001 said:


> If finances are a problem I can see why some men prefer to go Dutch.But if it's not a concern then in my opinion the man should pay.Always.


If finances are a problem then first think about where you're taking your date. If you can't afford it then don't take her to fancy places, but if you invite her then pay. 

I agree with you.


----------



## MrsAldi

lovelygirl said:


> Yeah, but not all dates are about walking. In most dates, you'll have to pay.
> Walking and walking ...an only walking...gets boring.
> 
> Also, you said "it's not about food". Obviously, it's not about food but *it's about the double standard that he's using.* That's the problem, not the food itself.


Walking was just an idea for a date. 

Can you explain please what is the double standard is? 

Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


----------



## SimplyAmorous

NextTimeAround said:


> IF I had sons, I would be worried too. The problem here is that a lot of men love the thrill of the chase and the challenge. A woman who pays her own way is viewed as desperate and does not know her own worth.
> 
> A woman who requires the man to ante up is viewed as someone who has options (kind of like the CEO who requires an 8 figure compensation package -- and gets it -, because of course, he could go elsewhere.....) and therefore, more exciting.
> 
> Sadly, it's been my experience that when I have been open to sharing expenses with a guy that he turns around and spends that money saved on someone else. Just seems to me that when you have some extra money, you don't spend it on that female "friend" you only see from time to time. Seems like you would give a pleasant surprise to the one who has faithfully supported you.
> 
> I can almost hear the men saying now "I had to pay for her because I don't see her that often." I guess that means I need to see that guy less as well. That was certainly what I told my future husband when I compared his treatment of me to that of his special friend. "At least," I said, " she still has the freedom to date and have sex with other men while you are wining and dining her (when you see her once every couple of months."
> 
> In the UK, there is the expression "Start off as you intend to continue." That only encourages women to be tough -- financially, at least -- on guys.
> 
> These days, more confident, I don't mind saying out loud that "when you expect me to turn down dates with other men and to coordinate my free time with you, then I expect you to treat me better than any other unrelated woman that you know (and even some related ones, cousins don't have much standing here, for example. In the state of NY you can still marry a first cousin.......)
> 
> so maybe men shoot themselves in their own feet. Is it really impossible to get excited over a woman who does not crack the financial whip?


There is no doubt I WOULDN'T feel as "special" or worth all that much if a man didn't offer to pay... Personally...I dislike many things about the so called "modern man" and what he expects ... pretty much sex by the 3rd date or what is wrong with you, are you a prude ...and may be expected to split the bill too...

Women have surely contributed to this very situation.. 

I have always preferred the older fashioned gentleman type.. all I am saying is... I can see how they can get taken for a ride...and pretty easily if they aren't being careful ... 

I've never been a "well to do" woman.. so I don't expect much.. surely no CEO would give me the time of day.. I am far out of his class... a good hearted blue collar guy who knows how to treat a woman with respect would do me just fine.... 

So yeah... it's a double edged sword.. it's important for the man to be getting something in return too... at the very least... us showing our appreciation - not met with some sort of "entitlement attitude" from the get go.. I would hope that doesn't make a woman seem like she is worth less or has little value.. but it is what it is..


----------



## Andy1001

SimplyAmorous said:


> There is no doubt I WOULDN'T feel as "special" or worth all that much if a man didn't offer to pay... Personally...I dislike many things about the so called "modern man" and what he expects ... pretty much sex by the 3rd date or what is wrong with you, are you a prude ...and may be expected to split the bill too...
> 
> Women have surely contributed to this very situation..
> 
> I have always preferred the older fashioned gentleman type.. all I am saying is... I can see how they can get taken for a ride...and pretty easily if they aren't being careful ...
> 
> I've never been a "well to do" woman.. so I don't expect much.. surely no CEO would give me the time of day.. I am far out of his class... a good hearted blue collar guy who knows how to treat a woman with respect would do me just fine....
> 
> So yeah... it's a double edged sword.. it's important for the man to be getting something in return too... at the very least... us showing our appreciation - not met with some sort of "entitlement attitude" from the get go.. I would hope that doesn't make a woman seem like she is worth less or has little value.. but it is what it is..


In a lot of your other posts you talk about how you try and get the most out of every dollar you spend.You have used the expression "squeezing a dime out of a nickel".This is how the top ceo's in the country try and operate just on a bigger scale,getting maximum profit from minimum expenditure.Dont sell yourself short,these guys are not that different from everyone else.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Andy1001 said:


> In a lot of your other posts you talk about how you try and get the most out of every dollar you spend.You have used the expression "squeezing a dime out of a nickel".This is how the top ceo's in the country try and operate just on a bigger scale,getting maximum profit from minimum expenditure.Dont sell yourself short,these guys are not that different from everyone else.


You always come to my defense on this.. it is very kind of you.. but honestly Andy.. I know what class I am in and where I would be most comfortable.. that's kinda important too...the higher class LIVE a very different lifestyle over what I am used to...and it's perfectly OK...

I still love my life... who I am, where I come from, it has surely given me more of an appreciation for the "little things"... I wouldn't be offended going to a common restaurant on a date by any means, doesn't have to be something fancy... I don't expect a lot (always order water too and would see what the daily special was) ...I appreciate acts from the heart.... a Picnic date would be fine too.. 

I would feel most cared for if a man shows he wants to SPEND TIME with me, genuinely wanting to get to know me.. over what any of his money can buy for going out...ya know..


----------



## Adelais

Who should pay on dates?

It depends on who invited whom. The person who invited should pay. They need to make sure to plan a date they can afford to pay for.

I really like what Andy1001's dad told him. Wise man!

If I were single, and a man invited me on a date and then expected me to pay 1/2, there wouldn't be a second date. If I invited someone on a date, and he insisted on paying his 1/2, I might give him a second date to find out what was behind that gesture.

However, I probably wouldn't invite a guy on a date in the first place, as I'm more traditional and would not want to appear aggressive or desperate.


----------



## heartsbeating

lovelygirl said:


> Super amazing! Just like you said, I love it when even friends do it and I'd feel pleased to do the same next time.
> This type of behavior has got so much class, (especially when accompanied by "_it's already been taken care of..._" expression!


I can only relate in terms of friends/family seeing as I'm not in the dating scene ...I hope you'll welcome the thoughts nonetheless. A scenario I observed at a cafe had me considering this topic a little more. It extends beyond simply who pays and is more around consideration, generosity, hospitality and chivalry - perhaps too, the delivery and acceptance of that intent.

In many ways, my friends and I are quite gentlemanly towards each other ha ha. Most recently a friend placed our order while I stayed with our bags/table. Cheese platter and wine. I expected to pay afterwards. She had already taken care of it and said she wanted it to be her treat. It's not mentally chalked that she paid this time so I will next... there's just a shared appreciation and hospitality that's demonstrated in various ways at various times. One friend doesn't drive to work, it was pouring of rain, I thought of her and that she'd likely get drenched so offered to pick her up from work on my way home (which she keenly accepted). Consideration is shown in many ways - which is why, for me at least, it's more than simply about who pays.


----------



## heartsbeating

...after a few dates, my husband wanted to cook me dinner... 

Of the restaurants and cafes we went to in the early days, it's his delicious home-cooked meal I remember the most vividly. Oh and the relaxed way he cooked while I sat watching him. Mreow.


----------



## EllisRedding

lovelygirl said:


> As I previously said, it's not always related to the "breadwinner" concept. It's more related to the chivalry of a man.
> Even if the girl is richer/earns more than the man, I'd still be turned on by the man paying. (not every single time obviously, but most times ..)


I understand that, but on the flip side, and as others have stated, considering guys will pay/go all out with the idea that it will get them laid, I don't necessarily see a whole lot of chivalry in that 

I do get that you prefer or get turned on by a guy who almost always pays (although honestly it seems odd to say that even if acknowledging that the female is in a better position financially). I have almost always paid for my W, when we were making the same, and of course now. If I was on the dating scene now, given where I am financially now, I would be very leery of someone who expected to ride my coattail financially.


----------



## wild jade

lovelygirl said:


> As I previously said, it's not always related to the "breadwinner" concept. It's more related to the chivalry of a man.
> Even if the girl is richer/earns more than the man, I'd still be turned on by the man paying. (not every single time obviously, but most times ..)


Paying isn't always chivalry though. A lot of guys view it just like Andy001 does, basically transactional prostitution. Guy pays because he wants sex. The more beautiful the woman, the more he is willing to pay. The only difference between dating and prostitution in this mindset is that there is the element of the gamble in dating. You can't actually predict with certainty just how many hours you will have or what sex acts you will score. 

Other guys are interested in actually connecting with women as people, and in those cases paying might be seen as chivalry. 

When I was young and stupid, I had a real hard time telling these different kinds of guys apart because they all said the same sorts of things. But now I can see it all a mile away, and if I were ever to date again, I'd be able to work the system much, much better, be it free meals with sex for dessert or loving relationships.


----------



## uhtred

Unfortunately people who are the most evil and manipulative are the best at giving the impression of being good and loving.

The actual good person will be honest and not hide their flaws, and so may not appear nearly as attractive early in a relationship.




wild jade said:


> Paying isn't always chivalry though. A lot of guys view it just like Andy001 does, basically transactional prostitution. Guy pays because he wants sex. The more beautiful the woman, the more he is willing to pay. The only difference between dating and prostitution in this mindset is that there is the element of the gamble in dating. You can't actually predict with certainty just how many hours you will have or what sex acts you will score.
> 
> Other guys are interested in actually connecting with women as people, and in those cases paying might be seen as chivalry.
> 
> When I was young and stupid, I had a real hard time telling these different kinds of guys apart because they all said the same sorts of things. But now I can see it all a mile away, and if I were ever to date again, I'd be able to work the system much, much better, be it free meals with sex for dessert or loving relationships.


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

Andy1001 said:


> If finances are a problem I can see why some men prefer to go Dutch.But if it's not a concern then in my opinion the man should pay.Always.


I'm from an older generation so that undoubtedly figures into MY experiences, but I've never been with a man who ever allowed me to pay for anything, not even so much as leaving the tip.

Over the years when I've been single and dated, I've had a few of them chuckle when I offered and said 'thanks, but no thanks,' a couple purposely pretended not to hear me even though I said it louder a 2nd time, a few who actually told me they were insulted that I'd offered, and several who told me how much they appreciated that I offered, but the answer was still no. One went so far as to tell me that I was never to offer to pay when I was with him again, because he always paid and that's what he always did and to please never offer again. That one was REAL 'old school' and he was a handsome Italian devil, too. I went to dinner with a guy who had a good position at Microsoft and insisted on taking me to the most expensive restaurant in the casino. I was highly uncomfortable and ordered the least expensive item on the menu which was still WAY overpriced, but he had absolutely no concern at all about any of it - and it wasn't being expensed, it was on his own dime. 

That's just the way it's always been in my experience with dating.


----------



## Wolf1974

wild jade said:


> Paying isn't always chivalry though. A lot of guys view it just like Andy001 does, basically* transactional prostitution*. Guy pays because he wants sex. The more beautiful the woman, the more he is willing to pay. The only difference between dating and prostitution in this mindset is that there is the element of the gamble in dating. You can't actually predict with certainty just how many hours you will have or what sex acts you will score.
> 
> Other guys are interested in actually connecting with women as people, and in those cases paying might be seen as chivalry.
> 
> When I was young and stupid, I had a real hard time telling these different kinds of guys apart because they all said the same sorts of things. But now I can see it all a mile away, and if I were ever to date again, I'd be able to work the system much, much better, be it free meals with sex for dessert or loving relationships.


I really like this term lol. Exactly what it is. I guess this thread has proven you can buy attention cheaply. Won't change what I do of course because I don't see women as anything but equals but this thread as reaffirmed that anyone not interested in cheap first couple of dates are not worth my time.


----------



## WorkingWife

jld said:


> I think a lot of women have made this mistake, WW. An unexpected twisting of the intentions of feminism has at times resulted in women being even further enslaved. It is as though feminism is used against itself.
> 
> It just seems unwise to do too much for a man.
> 
> Honestly, I am afraid it can ruin him.


I was searching for another post of yours and just saw this one for the first time. Yes. I am very grateful to feminism for all the freedom and choices I have. But it does have a down side. 

Speaking in generalities, when you take a woman's natural instinct to nurture and care for others and desire for "purpose" - and for some of us, tendency to defer to others and desire to be seen as responsible and be loving and generous, etc. And you take a man's tendency to live in the moment and for many be perfectly content as long as he's having a good time (less need for life to be "meaningful" in the same way.) And you instill in women that they must be independent, you often end up with financially successful women who are taking care of men who never really gets it together, and why should he? His life is going just fine.

There's a reason it used to take a shotgun to get a guy to marry the girl he knocked up. LOL. Men will rise to the occasion almost always - but it has to be expected of them. Their instinct is to drink beer and play games... ;-) 

There are a lot of ways I think feminism is a two sided sword. It's like the internet - It has so many benefits, I've got it and I won't give it up! But it also has unintended consequences that can be very damaging. It would be very easy for me to blame feminism on some of the worst mistakes I've made in my life, but ultimately, they were my choices and I will never really know how I would have handled those choices if I was raised in a different era. I might have made even worse decisions.


----------



## uhtred

Sometimes it helps to keep in mind that what is a lot of money for one person isn't for another. It can make things uncomfortable. Someone moderately wealthy might not think anything of dropping $100 / person on a dinner, they might not even think of it as unusual. If their date is poorer, it might seem to them like showing off, even though it isn't.

If the wealthier person is sensitive enough they will recognize the potential issue and instead find a place that isn't so expensive that it makes their date uncomfortable. Its a tricky balance though in also trying not to seem cheap. 




She'sStillGotIt said:


> . snip
> I went to dinner with a guy who had a good position at Microsoft and insisted on taking me to the most expensive restaurant in the casino. I was highly uncomfortable and ordered the least expensive item on the menu which was still WAY overpriced, but he had absolutely no concern at all about any of it - and it wasn't being expensed, it was on his own dime.
> 
> That's just the way it's always been in my experience with dating.


----------



## Tillaan

Wolf1974 said:


> I really like this term lol. Exactly what it is. I guess this thread has proven you can buy attention cheaply. Won't change what I do of course because I don't see women as anything but equals but this thread as reaffirmed that anyone not interested in cheap first couple of dates are not worth my time.




That's actually a great way to look at it. Anyone who wasn't interested in a few cheap first dates was just after a free ride/meal/night out and you have saved yourself time and money by not going on more dates with them. There's too many, from what my dating friends tell me, out there on the dating sites to waste time and money on dinners for the first few dates if not longer.

What are everyone's thoughts on dates continuing to be relatively inexpensive. Such as home cooked dinners, lower end family restaurants, or a night out after dinner time? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Andy1001

uhtred said:


> Unfortunately people who are the most evil and manipulative are the best at giving the impression of being good and loving.
> 
> The actual good person will be honest and not hide their flaws, and so may not appear nearly as attractive early in a relationship.


Paranoid much lol.When I dated I always put my dates needs first.Whether we had sex or not I always made sure she had a great time and I paid for everything.I,should explain that this was in my early to mid twenties and I wasn't looking to settle down and neither were mu dates.


----------



## jld

WorkingWife said:


> I was searching for another post of yours and just saw this one for the first time. Yes. I am very grateful to feminism for all the freedom and choices I have. But it does have a down side.
> 
> Speaking in generalities, when you take a woman's natural instinct to nurture and care for others and desire for "purpose" - and for some of us, tendency to defer to others and desire to be seen as responsible and be loving and generous, etc. And you take a man's tendency to live in the moment and for many be perfectly content as long as he's having a good time (less need for life to be "meaningful" in the same way.) And you instill in women that they must be independent, you often end up with financially successful women who are taking care of men who never really gets it together, and why should he? His life is going just fine.
> 
> There's a reason it used to take a shotgun to get a guy to marry the girl he knocked up. LOL. Men will rise to the occasion almost always - but it has to be expected of them. Their instinct is to drink beer and play games... ;-)
> 
> There are a lot of ways I think feminism is a two sided sword. It's like the internet - It has so many benefits, I've got it and I won't give it up! But it also has unintended consequences that can be very damaging. It would be very easy for me to blame feminism on some of the worst mistakes I've made in my life, but ultimately, they were my choices and I will never really know how I would have handled those choices if I was raised in a different era. I might have made even worse decisions.


It would be interesting to do a thread on this. As grateful as I am for feminism, I definitely think it can be twisted to work against women.

If I start one, I will let you know.


----------



## Holdingontoit

The part I have a problem with is the woman offers to pay half but expects the guy to reject her offer. If you want him to pay, and he picks up the check, let him pay. Be open and honest about what you expect.

If she is going to test me on the first date with a "trick question", then our relationship is going to be one [email protected]#t test after another. Ask me how I know.


----------



## jld

She'sStillGotIt said:


> I'm from an older generation so that undoubtedly figures into MY experiences, but *I've never been with a man who ever allowed me to pay for anything, not even so much as leaving the tip.*
> 
> Over the years when I've been single and dated, I've had a few of them chuckle when I offered and said 'thanks, but no thanks,' a couple purposely pretended not to hear me even though I said it louder a 2nd time, a few who actually told me they were insulted that I'd offered, and several who told me how much they appreciated that I offered, but the answer was still no. One went so far as to tell me that I was never to offer to pay when I was with him again, because he always paid and that's what he always did and to please never offer again. That one was REAL 'old school' and he was a handsome Italian devil, too. I went to dinner with a guy who had a good position at Microsoft and insisted on taking me to the most expensive restaurant in the casino. I was highly uncomfortable and ordered the least expensive item on the menu which was still WAY overpriced, but he had absolutely no concern at all about any of it - and it wasn't being expensed, it was on his own dime.
> 
> That's just the way it's always been in my experience with dating.


This was largely my experience, too. It could be, as you mention, a generational thing. But my daughter (in her early 20s) has had the same experience.

It is really hard for me not to see this as a standard of some sort.

Have you ever heard the saying, "If you accept only the best, you are very likely to get it"?


----------



## uhtred

I think dates should be designed to enjoy time together, not to show off. Its possible to have lots of fun without spending much money. 



Tillaan said:


> That's actually a great way to look at it. Anyone who wasn't interested in a few cheap first dates was just after a free ride/meal/night out and you have saved yourself time and money by not going on more dates with them. There's too many, from what my dating friends tell me, out there on the dating sites to waste time and money on dinners for the first few dates if not longer.
> 
> What are everyone's thoughts on dates continuing to be relatively inexpensive. Such as home cooked dinners, lower end family restaurants, or a night out after dinner time?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Maricha75

Andy1001 said:


> *Paranoid much lol.*When I dated I always put my dates needs first.Whether we had sex or not I always made sure she had a great time and I paid for everything.I,should explain that this was in my early to mid twenties and I wasn't looking to settle down and neither were mu dates.


I don't think he is paranoid at all. It's nice that you, ypurself, were a decent guy, whether the date ended with sex or not. But, what @uhtred is talking about is the other side of the coin. I didn't deal with men of the sort he described, personally. However, I can't even begin to count how many of my friends and family DID run into that sort of person while dating. It's true. Those who are truly the worst more often are able to appear to be the greatest. Why do you think the saying "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is" exists??


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## Tillaan

uhtred said:


> I think dates should be designed to enjoy time together, not to show off. Its possible to have lots of fun without spending much money.




10 years of supporting a family of 4 now 5 on a single income. Fun on a budget is something I know very well lol. My challenge will be not coming off super cheap.

My interest in the topic at hand is in the perception of not the practicality of budget dates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

Yes, I know women who were basically seduced by players who did a wonderful impression of being caring and romantic. The seemed more caring and romantic that men who really were that way but didn't put on a show.

Not being biased here, there are also women who seduce and use men, and men who fall for their trickery as well. 




Maricha75 said:


> I don't think he is paranoid at all. It's nice that you, ypurself, were a decent guy, whether the date ended with sex or not. But, what @uhtred is talking about is the other side of the coin. I didn't deal with men of the sort he described, personally. However, I can't even begin to count how many of my friends and family DID run into that sort of person while dating. It's true. Those who are truly the worst more often are able to appear to be the greatest. Why do you think the saying "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is" exists??
> 
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## musicftw07

jld said:


> WorkingWife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was searching for another post of yours and just saw this one for the first time. Yes. I am very grateful to feminism for all the freedom and choices I have. But it does have a down side.
> 
> Speaking in generalities, when you take a woman's natural instinct to nurture and care for others and desire for "purpose" - and for some of us, tendency to defer to others and desire to be seen as responsible and be loving and generous, etc. And you take a man's tendency to live in the moment and for many be perfectly content as long as he's having a good time (less need for life to be "meaningful" in the same way.) And you instill in women that they must be independent, you often end up with financially successful women who are taking care of men who never really gets it together, and why should he? His life is going just fine.
> 
> There's a reason it used to take a shotgun to get a guy to marry the girl he knocked up. LOL. Men will rise to the occasion almost always - but it has to be expected of them. Their instinct is to drink beer and play games... ;-)
> 
> There are a lot of ways I think feminism is a two sided sword. It's like the internet - It has so many benefits, I've got it and I won't give it up! But it also has unintended consequences that can be very damaging. It would be very easy for me to blame feminism on some of the worst mistakes I've made in my life, but ultimately, they were my choices and I will never really know how I would have handled those choices if I was raised in a different era. I might have made even worse decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to do a thread on this. As grateful as I am for feminism, I definitely think it can be twisted to work against women.
> 
> If I start one, I will let you know.
Click to expand...

I would be very interested in this topic!

As to the idea that men "live in the moment", I have to kindly disagree with that notion. Many men, especially myself, are quite forward thinking. I'm only 37, but I'm taking every step I can now to ensure my retirement (I'm planning around the age of 63) is a good one. My daughter is only 9, but I'm already planning how to pay for her college (all on my own btw, my xWW doesn't plan anything whatsoever and I am not expecting her to help). 

This is why I reject the notion that a man must pay by default; I'm looking ahead and deducing what things would be like down the road. If she has that expectation now, what else is this fully capable and able-bodied person going to just be"expect" me to provide? How much harder am I going to have to work to keep up with her material expectations? What would my life be like in 5 years being partnered with a person who has this attitude?

It ended in infidelity and divorce. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

What I find lacking in this conversation is this: if men are obligated to pay, then what are women obligated to do? Where is the reciprocity?


----------



## lovelygirl

MrsAldi said:


> Walking was just an idea for a date.
> 
> Can you explain please what is the double standard is?
> 
> Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


You were replying to one of @NextTimeAround 's post when she mentioned the dinner-date and you said that _walking can be just fine, because it's not about food.
_
And I'm saying that when your date chooses to have just a walk with you and while dating other girls he takes them out to dinner, that's a double standard. On one girl he spends money and on the other he doesn't...and if he's not willing to spend money on you (while he did on others) then he's simply not being fair.


----------



## EllisRedding

lovelygirl said:


> MrsAldi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walking was just an idea for a date.
> 
> Can you explain please what is the double standard is?
> 
> Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> You were replying to one of @NextTimeAround 's post when she mentioned the dinner-date and you said that _walking can be just fine, because it's not about food.
> _
> And I'm saying that when your date chooses to have just a walk with you and while dating other girls he takes them out to dinner, that's a double standard. On one girl he spends money and on the other he doesn't...and if he's not willing to spend money on you (while he did on others) then he's simply not being fair.
Click to expand...

I fail to see the double standard. So where does it end, you could then argue if he takes one date to a more expensive place than you he is not being fair? Are we now to compare every date to figure out if you are getting the real deal? Once again, maybe he felt that going with you for a walk was more intimate, maybe he felt it is a better way to get to know you...


----------



## Tillaan

uhtred said:


> Not being biased here, there are also women who seduce and use men, and men who fall for their trickery as well.



Lol I married one. Don't bother asking how that worked out because it didn't. But she at this stage of our divorce routinely goes out and finds guys to buy her drinks all night and when they stop buying she moves on to the next one. I only know this because a friend's wife went out with her one night last year and was disgusted by her behavior. 
She is also very proud of her ability to do this and I've heard her bragging to her friends in school (all ten years younger and she needs to feel cool) that she can still do this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NextTimeAround

lovelygirl said:


> You were replying to one of @NextTimeAround 's post when she mentioned the dinner-date and you said that _walking can be just fine, because it's not about food.
> _
> And I'm saying that when your date chooses to have just a walk with you and while dating other girls he takes them out to dinner, that's a double standard. On one girl he spends money and on the other he doesn't...and if he's not willing to spend money on you (while he did on others) then he's simply not being fair.


I would not call it a double standard. I would say that if you have that kind of information about this guy, then you have an idea as to where you are prioritised on his dating ladder. 

As they say, knowledge is power.


----------



## uhtred

I'm a guy so maybe its different, but I'd think it was great if a woman I wanted to date said she wanted to go for a walk rather than dinner. In a lot of ways its a better environment to get to know someone. Quiet (if it is walking in a park / woods, not city), no constant interruptions from waiters bringing food, menus etc. 

Walking in the outdoors is one of my favorite things to do. After a couple of walking dates I might see if she wanted to go for a walk in the Alps or Norway or maybe Patagonia. 







NextTimeAround said:


> I would not call it a double standard. I would say that if you have that kind of information about this guy, then you have an idea as to where you are prioritised on his dating ladder.
> 
> As they say, knowledge is power.


----------



## MrsAldi

lovelygirl said:


> And I'm saying that when your date chooses to have just a walk with you and while dating other girls he takes them out to dinner, that's a double standard. On one girl he spends money and on the other he doesn't...and if he's not willing to spend money on you (while he did on others) then he's simply not being fair.


Thank you for answering my question. 
To be honest, I wouldn't care about what a guy has spent on some previous woman, she's old news and in his past. 

My first dates with my now husband were pretty cheap (McDonald's) but he has spoiled me a lot since then. 
Yeah he may have spent more money on first dates before me but those women are ancient history now and he's in love with me and if I want something he will walk to the ends of the earth to get it for me. 

It may be a double standard but that's only if you place your value/worth in monetary terms. 

Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


----------



## Maricha75

EllisRedding said:


> I fail to see the double standard. So where does it end, you could then argue if he takes one date to a more expensive place than you he is not being fair? Are we now to compare every date to figure out if you are getting the real deal? Once again, maybe he felt that going with you for a walk was more intimate, maybe he felt it is a better way to get to know you...


Plus, if you had long conversations prior to that first date, it would be known that a long walk (or even a picnic) would be preferable. And, by choosing this particular activity, rather than spending a lot of money in a restaurant, the man is showing he pays attention to what SHE wants, rather than trying to impress with fancy restaurants. 

I, personally, wouldn't care if dinner was Taco Bell followed by a walk on the beach. I would prefer it, actually, over a 5 Star restaurant. And, yes, I would make that known beforehand. I wouldn't be comfortable at such an establishment. If a man took me there, after I made my feelings known, there would be no second date.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## Holdingontoit

I know I will get flames for this, but here goes.

Ladies, please remember, if you insist on men always paying for dates, you are perpetuating women being paid less in the workplace. If men need to be able to pay for dates to get access to "high quality" women, they will be more motivated to maximize their income than women will be. Trust me, no matter how motivated your daughter (or mine) is to buy new shoes or a house or save for retirement, my son (and yours) is even more motivated to get all that plus a hot date on Saturday night. If increasing earnings is a primary way to increase SMV, then males will prioritize work success over friendship, leisure, household chores, childcare, etc. In the end, they will out earn females - because they have to do so to gain access to desirable partners. So if you tell your daughters to insist that guys pay on dates, also tell them not to complain when they don't make as much as the guy down the hall. He probably pushed for it harder than they would feel comfortable doing.


----------



## NextTimeAround

I can't think of any situation in which the guy either before or after had hinged his payment of anything to having sex with him.

Even in college, guys were more careful to just invite you over to their place or for them to come to your place.

So I guess I am operating in a world different from a quite a few others around here.

but what I have found, is that if you offer to at, go dutch, help pay whatever, or even cheerfully accept the cheaper option of a more casual restaurant, I am then (smirkily) called a "cheap date" and I don't get the feeling that was meant as a compliment.

If men would like for women to (help) carry the can, then why do they shoot themselves in the foot so often?


----------



## jld

Holdingontoit said:


> I know I will get flames for this, but here goes.
> 
> Ladies, please remember, if you insist on men always paying for dates, you are perpetuating women being paid less in the workplace. If men need to be able to pay for dates to get access to "high quality" women, they will be more motivated to maximize their income than women will be. Trust me, no matter how motivated your daughter (or mine) is to buy new shoes or a house or save for retirement, my son (and yours) is even more motivated to get all that plus a hot date on Saturday night. If increasing earnings is a primary way to increase SMV, then males will prioritize work success over friendship, leisure, household chores, childcare, etc. In the end, they will out earn females - because they have to do so to gain access to desirable partners. So if you tell your daughters to insist that guys pay on dates, also tell them not to complain when they don't make as much as the guy down the hall. He probably pushed for it harder than they would feel comfortable doing.


He probably would've pushed harder anyway. That's what my husband learned in his MBA program. They were told that men ask for and expect raises and promotions, while women are much less likely to do so.

And, to be clear, a woman should not insist a man pay. If he does not do it of his own free will, that is already valuable information about him.


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

Holdingontoit said:


> Ladies, please remember, if you insist on men always paying for dates, you are perpetuating women being paid less in the workplace.


There have been a ton of posts in this thread and I admit I haven read each and every one word for word, but I really don't recall seeing any posts where a woman has stated that she thinks the man should bankroll their ENTIRE dating experience - from date #1 all the way to the last.

The majority of posts that I've read regarding women wanting a man to pay for a date have been more about preferring that a man pay for the FIRST date. I also saw a couple posts where it was mentioned they'd prefer him to pay for the first date _and_ the 2nd or 3rd too, before they start contributing. But I don't recall seeing any posts where a woman has said he should pay for every single date they go on (unless I missed those posts).


----------



## EllisRedding

She'sStillGotIt said:


> There have been a ton of posts in this thread and I admit I haven read each and every one word for word, but I really don't recall seeing any posts where a woman has stated that she thinks the man should bankroll their ENTIRE dating experience - from date #1 all the way to the last.
> 
> The majority of posts that I've read regarding women wanting a man to pay for a date have been more about preferring that a man pay for the FIRST date. I also saw a couple posts where it was mentioned they'd prefer him to pay for the first date _and_ the 2nd or 3rd too, before they start contributing. But I don't recall seeing any posts where a woman has said he should pay for every single date they go on (unless I missed those posts).


I think it is a good question, and one TBH that I think some haven't answered (I have asked this). For those who believe that a man should pay, does it apply only to the first date, the first several dates, etc... Is the expectation this should be his responsibility for the duration of the relationship? Does how much you make relative to him come into play? Lovelygirl answered this for the most part as per below:



> Even if the girl is richer/earns more than the man, I'd still be turned on by the man paying. (not every single time obviously, but most times ..)


IIRC WildJade had mentioned she would want the guy to pay at first but once it became a relationship she would like to contribute as well (apologies if I got this wrong WJ).


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> He probably would've pushed harder anyway. That's what my husband learned in his MBA program. They were told that men ask for and expect raises and promotions, while women are much less likely to do so.
> 
> And, to be clear, a woman should not insist a man pay. If he does not do it of his own free will, that is already valuable information about him.


A lot of this has to do with the fact that women are more attuned to other people's feelings and feel that they shouldn't push themselves forward if it would hurt someone else's feelings.You see it at the top level in business,women reach a certain level and then stick.Funnily enough the odd woman that doesn't feel like this can easily end up as CEO of multinational companies.Even in politics it is the same,women who reach the top are seen as ballbreakers,the opinion is they can go so far and no further.Angela Merkel and Theresa May may disagree though.


----------



## Satya

Wolf1974 said:


> I will say this though one reason I have never resented spending money on my GF is because she is always genuinely grateful when I do. I mean we have been together almost 3.5 years and even just last week I bought her a burrito at chipotle. Nothing fancy just a quick lunch after a hike we took. Walking out she said "thank you so much for lunch baby". She always does that and I never feel taken advantage of as a result.


This is really important. Simple gratitude, but it reinforces a desired quality in women I think many men respect: a gracious nature.

(yes I know I'm a bit late to reply to this... Can't browse TAM 24/7... 😊)


----------



## Andy1001

arbitrator said:


> *Thanks, @jld ~ but its largely my own fault! After being twice-divorced from heartless, cheating wives, "mutual trust" just doesn't come my way all that easy anymore!
> 
> I know that it's largely nothing more than "stinkin' thinkin'," but a lot of times I've told myself that even if I married someone as virtuous as say, Mother Teresa, she probably would end up cheating on me because there's probably something within my mental makeup that would make them cheat exactly like the other two!
> 
> But hope does spring eternal!*


I think you would be safe enough trusting Mother Teresa not to cheat.
She's dead.


----------



## Wolf1974

Satya said:


> This is really important. Simple gratitude, but it reinforces a desired quality in women I think many men respect: a gracious nature.
> 
> (yes I know I'm a bit late to reply to this... Can't browse TAM 24/7... 😊)


Whatcha mean you can't respond 24/7 lol

Yeah honestly she is the only woman I have ever met like this (not to say that more dont exist) And I spend on her believe me. Always a gracious thank you for even the most minor of things makes me never hesitant for the larger things.


----------



## wild jade

NextTimeAround said:


> I would not call it a double standard. I would say that if you have that kind of information about this guy, then you have an idea as to where you are prioritised on his dating ladder.
> 
> As they say, knowledge is power.


Bingo! Nailed it!


----------



## wild jade

uhtred said:


> Unfortunately people who are the most evil and manipulative are the best at giving the impression of being good and loving.
> 
> The actual good person will be honest and not hide their flaws, and so may not appear nearly as attractive early in a relationship.


Yes, exactly. Except that players also have the "I'm just a poor flawed humble man" spiel down pat too.

Not saying that women aren't equally good actresses. Just saying that it takes a certain level of experience or savvy to see through the smoke and mirrors.


----------



## wild jade

Andy1001 said:


> I think you would be safe enough trusting Mother Teresa not to cheat.
> She's dead.


And that's the only reason, because truth be told, she was actually one sadistic mofo.


----------



## frusdil

My husband asked me to split the bill on our first date, and it really turned me off. I paid my half, but it left me feeling very deflated. I can't really explain why either - it's not about the money, it just felt like I was out with a friend and not on a date. He asked me for a second date and I simply said that I enjoyed myself but I thought we were too different, that I was more old fashioned than I realised when it comes to dating and that I was taken aback at being asked to split the bill.

He apologised profusely and asked for a chance to "redeem" (his words not mine) himself. I agreed to a second date, hehehe  He always pays when we go out, he likes it that way (I'm a SAHM now anyway) and has always led our relationship, I followed his lead and I liked (still do!) it that way. To this day, I always thank him for taking me out, and I genuinely mean it. It makes me feel very special when he takes me on a date, opens the doors, pulls out my chair - I lap it up, I love it 

I did take him out for a fancy dinner when I sold my car (I had two). I insisted on paying - and then joked to him with a big grin that he had to have sex with me because I paid for his dinner, bahahahahaha


----------



## Andy1001

wild jade said:


> And that's the only reason, because truth be told, she was actually one sadistic mofo.


Finally we agree on something,a few years ago there was a documentary made about her and her charity and it was so damning that it has never been shown on tv.


----------



## wild jade

EllisRedding said:


> IIRC WildJade had mentioned she would want the guy to pay at first but once it became a relationship she would like to contribute as well (apologies if I got this wrong WJ).


Yep, this is pretty much what I said.  

For me, it's not so much the paying, but as @NextTimeAround put it, a way of learning where and whether I am prioritized on the dating ladder.


----------



## jld

frusdil said:


> My husband asked me to split the bill on our first date, and it really turned me off. I paid my half, but it left me feeling very deflated. I can't really explain why either - it's not about the money, it just felt like I was out with a friend and not on a date. He asked me for a second date and I simply said that I enjoyed myself but I thought we were too different, that I was more old fashioned than I realised when it comes to dating and that I was taken aback at being asked to split the bill.
> 
> He apologised profusely and asked for a chance to "redeem" (his words not mine) himself. I agreed to a second date, hehehe  He always pays when we go out, he likes it that way (I'm a SAHM now anyway) and has always led our relationship, I followed his lead and I liked (still do!) it that way. To this day, I always thank him for taking me out, and I genuinely mean it. It makes me feel very special when he takes me on a date, opens the doors, pulls out my chair - I lap it up, I love it
> 
> I did take him out for a fancy dinner when I sold my car (I had two). I insisted on paying - and then joked to him with a big grin that he had to have sex with me because I paid for his dinner, bahahahahaha


Did you ever ask him why he asked you to pay for half of the first date?


----------



## Andy1001

How can it even be called a date if she had to pay for herself,it was just two acquaintances having dinner.


----------



## EllisRedding

Andy1001 said:


> How can it even be called a date if she had to pay for herself,it was just two acquaintances having dinner.


Huh, so going on a date is only considered a date if just one person pays the bill lol.


----------



## Andy1001

EllisRedding said:


> Huh, so going on a date is only considered a date if just one person pays the bill lol.


It is if its the first date.


----------



## Personal

Andy1001 said:


> How can it even be called a date if she had to pay for herself,it was just two acquaintances having dinner.


So that must be why most of the women I dated including my wife, wanted to pay for themselves and me on our first dates. I guess all of those women must have been worried that if I payed for myself, I would have mistakenly presumed we were just two acquaintances having dinner.


----------



## Andy1001

Personal said:


> So that must be why most of the women I dated including my wife, wanted to pay for themselves and me on our first dates. I guess all of those women must have been worried that if I payed for myself, I would have mistakenly presumed we were just two acquaintances having dinner.


Or it could mean you looked like you were broke or just too cheap to pay.


----------



## Wolf1974

Andy1001 said:


> How can it even be called a date if she had to pay for herself,it was just two acquaintances having dinner.


That's what a first "date" is. Just two strangers coming together. Since most first dates don't work out that's all they will ever be is strangers


----------



## Andy1001

Wolf1974 said:


> That's what a first "date" is. Just two strangers coming together. Since most first dates don't work out that's all they will ever be is strangers


I think you are making my point better than I did.


----------



## DTO

I pay for the first few dates with a lady, regardless of finances (I've been with some at least as well-off as me) and of who approached whom. It's gentlemanly and I tend to be generous anyways. 

If it becomes consistent dating, I do expect the lady to chip in as she is able. It does not have to be expensive, but the effort is required. And I will ask.

At that stage I am assessing longer-term compatibility. If I am seeing someone longer-term it will be a lady who wants to give back. So at that point I start looking to see if she will meet that need.

Just like a lady typically does not want a guy who comes around only for sex, a guy does not want a lady who is around only for the flush times.

ETA: I feel that the ladies worth having around tend to want to give back somehow. Either they will treat as they can, or they will cook dinner so I don't have to pay or do it myself.

OTOH, the ones who are just along for a good time tend to disappear pretty quickly when you make clear that generosity is not unlimited. I had a friend (we've since drifted apart) where we tried to spark something up once but it did not work out. I'd generally pay for dinner since I was better off. But there was one time she asked about my plans and I did the "I'll fly if you buy" thing (she did not have a car at that particular time). She paid but interestingly did not ask me out for a very long time after.


----------



## Personal

Andy1001 said:


> Or it could mean you looked like you were broke or just too cheap to pay.


Actually it means they were following the norm of the person who does the asking and pursuing is the one that pays.


----------



## Andy1001

Slightly off thread but what is the deal When groups of men go for a meal compared to groups of women.There is a bar/restaurant near me and I go there a lot especially at lunch time.The staff tells me their favourite customers are groups of men and least favourite are groups of women.If the men's check is a hundred and twenty dollars they will throw in thirty bucks each if there are five of them and no one questions who ate what or who drank this or that.But apparently when it comes to the ladies as soon as the check comes someone takes out their phone calculator and starts adding who had what.I have actually seen this myself and I think it's laughable,all that hassle over a couple of dollars.
Are the ladies more circumspect when it comes to spending their own cash.lol.


----------



## frusdil

jld said:


> Did you ever ask him why he asked you to pay for half of the first date?


No, I didn't, I just told him how it made me feel. He apologised profusely, expressed how appalled he was at his lack of manners and that in the past out with family etc. when he's tried to pay they've all shouted him down and chipped in. He said he'd not dated for a while so forgotten what was appropriate. He asked if he could have a second date with me and I said yes.

When he said how much he enjoyed our date and wanted to see me again I figured I had 3 options - say nothing, see him again and splitting the bill would continue; say something and he'd say no worries, and that'd be it; or say something, he'd think it over and ask to see me again. We'd only been on one date at that point, neither of us had anything to lose, so I just honestly told him how I felt. Immedidately he asked if he could have a second date with me and I said yes.



Andy1001 said:


> How can it even be called a date if she had to pay for herself,it was just two acquaintances having dinner.


That's exactly how I felt. I was actually quite shocked that I felt that way, I really surprised myself. It's not at all about the money either...I would have felt the same way had it been meeting for a drink/coffee.

That said, I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this. Like so many other things in life, it's right if it works for both people involved, and what works for one couple won't for another - neither is right or wrong, just different.

That's the whole point of dating is it not? To see if the two people involved are compatible? If not, move on.


----------



## Wolf1974

Andy1001 said:


> I think you are making my point better than I did.


If your point was you shouldn't put much time and effort into someone you don't know and likely won't know after that night then we agree


----------



## Wolf1974

frusdil said:


> No, I didn't, I just told him how it made me feel. He apologised profusely, expressed how appalled he was at his lack of manners and that in the past out with family etc. when he's tried to pay they've all shouted him down and chipped in. He said he'd not dated for a while so forgotten what was appropriate. He asked if he could have a second date with me and I said yes.
> 
> When he said how much he enjoyed our date and wanted to see me again I figured I had 3 options - say nothing, see him again and splitting the bill would continue; say something and he'd say no worries, and that'd be it; or say something, he'd think it over and ask to see me again. We'd only been on one date at that point, neither of us had anything to lose, so I just honestly told him how I felt. Immedidately he asked if he could have a second date with me and I said yes.
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly how I felt. I was actually quite shocked that I felt that way, I really surprised myself. It's not at all about the money either...I would have felt the same way had it been meeting for a drink/coffee.
> 
> That said, I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this. Like so many other things in life, it's right if it works for both people involved, and what works for one couple won't for another - neither is right or wrong, just different.
> 
> That's the whole point of dating is it not? * To see if the two people involved are compatible*? If not, move on.


Was always my thought. Which is why I think we have to date a lot to find that compatible someone :smile2:


----------



## lovelygirl

frusdil said:


> *My husband asked me to split the bill on our first date*, and it really turned me off. I paid my half, but it left me feeling very deflated. I can't really explain why either - it's not about the money, it just felt like I was out with a friend and not on a date. He asked me for a second date and I simply said that I enjoyed myself but I thought we were too different, that I was more old fashioned than I realised when it comes to dating and that I was taken aback at being asked to split the bill.
> 
> He apologised profusely and asked for a chance to "redeem" (his words not mine) himself. I agreed to a second date, hehehe  He always pays when we go out, he likes it that way (I'm a SAHM now anyway) and has always led our relationship, I followed his lead and I liked (still do!) it that way. To this day, I always thank him for taking me out, and I genuinely mean it. It makes me feel very special when he takes me on a date, opens the doors, pulls out my chair - I lap it up, I love it
> 
> I did take him out for a fancy dinner when I sold my car (I had two). I insisted on paying - and then joked to him with a big grin that he had to have sex with me because I paid for his dinner, bahahahahaha


:surprise:

It turned you that you married this guy (lol) but I don't know if I'd even consider a second date with a guy who asked me to split the bill (especially on the first date), no matter how much he apologised.

Never say never...but oh boy! I'd feel a MASSIVE turn off if I were in your situation lol [not trying to judge your hubby btw. It's good to hear that it worked out between you two  ]

I remember I dated a guy who on our second date pretended to had forgotten his wallet at home. bha! (Probably he did for real - who knows). Anyway, I paid for us and he promised he'd pay for us on the 3rd date. We went out for a third time and we ended up splitting the bills...

Thinking about it now...I was probably a very "nice girl" back then (2 years ago) but if it happened today I would've handled it differently! I would simply leave, abandon him there at the table and would never want to see/call him again. Plus, I wouldn't care if I behaved like a beetch!


----------



## MrsHolland

Andy1001 said:


> Slightly off thread but what is the deal When groups of men go for a meal compared to groups of women.There is a bar/restaurant near me and I go there a lot especially at lunch time.The staff tells me their favourite customers are groups of men and least favourite are groups of women.If the men's check is a hundred and twenty dollars they will throw in thirty bucks each if there are five of them and no one questions who ate what or who drank this or that.But apparently when it comes to the ladies as soon as the check comes someone takes out their phone calculator and starts adding who had what.I have actually seen this myself and I think it's laughable,all that hassle over a couple of dollars.
> *Are the ladies more circumspect when it comes to spending their own cash.*lol.


Not in my experience (and I have had decades of it). I go to a lot of girls lunches and dinners, usually we all put in the same amount or with a couple of friends if it is just a small group of 2 or 3 then often one will pay the whole bill and someone else the next time. Being a veggo my meals are often cheaper than the others but it is no issue to pay equal amounts of the bill.


----------



## Andy1001

MrsHolland said:


> Not in my experience (and I have had decades of it). I go to a lot of girls lunches and dinners, usually we all put in the same amount or with a couple of friends if it is just a small group of 2 or 3 then often one will pay the whole bill and someone else the next time. Being a veggo my meals are often cheaper than the others but it is no issue to pay equal amounts of the bill.


If I recall correctly you are Australian.I have always found Aussie girls to be generous to a fault.I dated one when I was based in London and she was great fun to be around and always insisted on paying her way.If I told you where she ended up you would think I was lying.lol.


----------



## MrsHolland

Andy1001 said:


> If I recall correctly you are Australian.I have always found Aussie girls to be generous to a fault.I dated one when I was based in London and she was great fun to be around and always insisted on paying her way.If I told you where she ended up you would think I was lying.lol.


Yes I'm an Aussie. 

Where did she end up?


----------



## Andy1001

MrsHolland said:


> Yes I'm an Aussie.
> 
> Where did she end up?


On the podium at the Olympic Games.Seriously.I won't go into any more detail about which games but she did win a medal.


----------



## TaDor

I personally like it when women did pay for part of the date... I think it would empower women as their own person... Rather, "I bought you dinner, so I should at least get a BJ."

I can only think of a couple of women I have dated in which we would take turns buying a round of drinks... I like how that worked out


----------



## MEM2020

FW,

This gets to the core of how these things can work well - because it deals with expectations and reactions. 

M2 consistently offered to pay for part/half of our dates and I consistently smiled and declined her offers. Maybe 3 weeks in - I started sleeping over at her place. We would make out and then - go to sleep. Did that for a couple, maybe three weeks. Then I ask her to go away for the weekend - to a nice place. She offers to pay - I say thanks but no thanks. 

Friday night - seriously - it would have been better maybe I had explained that I already had 20 or so sexual partners - just wasn't in a rush - definitely was SUPER attracted to her. Didn't say any of that. Just went to sleep with her poor little Gaydar going beep beep beep. (If asked M2 would say: nothing wrong with being gay - just don't tease straight people). 

Saturday morning we wake up and in hindsight - I realize - she's thinking - he is either gay or not into me - and she is angrily wondering - WTF - why take me on this nice weekend trip if he is not into me. 

I had a lightbulb moment - which was: If I don't put out - she's going to dump me - right now. Sheesh. In the space of 24 hours she discovered that: I sort of had a good basic skill set. I liked sex a LOT and was happy to have as much as she wanted.....

Couple times M2 got a bit riled about checks and doors - each time I said the same thing: Not doing this because you can't. Just doing it because I have a thing for you (followed by a shrug - which meant - are you really gonna hold it against me - that I have a thing for you). 

Long and short of it. I pick up the check - just means I like you. Full stop. That's it. Doesn't mean you like me back. Definitely doesn't mean I expect you to sleep with me. Just means that: I LIKE YOU. Truth is - I don't expect it to impact how you feel about me very much. 




Faithful Wife said:


> Hi jld
> 
> So there's a little more to this nuance, and again I have not read the whole thread so I apologize if these points were already made...
> 
> First of all, there are lots of reasons people date, there are many different dating goals. Here are a few examples or goals:
> 
> *to find a true love and live happily ever after
> 
> *just to get laid, with no attachments (whether they inform the other person of this or not)
> 
> *to find a boyfriend or girlfriend, not looking for forever (young people and divorced people especially) (and another caveat is that boy/girlfriend is a loose term and can mean a lot or a little commitment to different people, and it may not even mean sexual exclusivity to some people)
> 
> *to have fun dating, if something develops then great, if not, I still had fun dating
> 
> 
> 
> So the way you date and how you behave is different when you have different goals. And the way you find dates is different as well.
> 
> In my recent dating experience which is what I made my posts about, I have been exclusively online dating. I have not been asked out by anyone who met me in person first (though a few would have but circumstances prevented it). I have also not been looking for Mr. Right because I had just ended my marriage and I wasn't down for that type of feelings just yet. So basically I wanted a companion and sex partner, someone who we mutually really care about each other, maybe in love but it wasn't necessary, someone who would not expect me to move toward a more committed relationship any time soon (though sexual exclusivity is a must for me). To do this I did a lot of online dating.
> 
> When you are doing online dating and you are kind of busy at it (1 - 3 dates a week), you end up burning through a whole lot of first dates. Now for me, I actually enjoy first dates or meets. It is fun to me. Even if there is no chance and/or no chemistry or whatever, I still always had a nice chat with an interesting new person. But my time is also valuable so I certainly tried to only have first dates with people who might fit the bill I described above, and therefore I had lots and lots of first dates with men who on paper and in pictures looked like a decent match for what I want right now. It was so great! So fun, fascinating, and interesting.
> 
> But the bottom line to online dating is that 95% of first dates won't go anywhere (again depending on how busy you get at it, what your goals are, and what market you are dating in...IOW some people could narrow down the amount of dates but possibly get a higher success rate). And because of this, I ended up viewing first dates as something more like an interview. I love interviews too actually! We were mutually interviewing each other for a certain position in each other's lives. It is no one's fault that most of the time this doesn't turn into a second date, and frankly, I wasn't asking any of these guys to try to win me over or show me what he is really made of. I didn't even want that, I just wanted a friendly, no strings meet up, the same as I might do to meet a new consultant I was considering hiring for a special type of job. In a case like that I would happily pick up the tab to have lunch with said potential consultant.
> 
> In the end, I had many GREAT dates, and a couple of those did turn into a little or a lot more.
> 
> But let's say that a man noticed me somewhere and approached me, talked me up, was clearly interested in me, found out I was single, asked for my number and said he would love to take me to dinner sometime. Let's just say further that this man's dating goal is to find a life partner. This has happened to me before, but it is rare. In this type of case, every man who did this planned a great date and paid for everything (and I did not interfere).
> 
> This guy I've just described is a whole lot different than the online daters I mentioned above, specifically men who are also burning through a lot of first dates. Your approach is a lot different when you know you are just weeding through people in order to find someone for these (somewhat limited) specific dating goals. Guys who also aren't looking for "the one" who are a match for me, are way more able and ready to be flattered and happy if/when a woman reaches for the check. But the guy whose goal it was to have a life partner and who was truly interested at first sight in a woman, he is more likely to refuse the very thought of her paying (this is not strictly true however).
> 
> In all of the first dates I've had where I paid the check, not one of these guys EVER tried to hand me the check. None of them even expected it, actually. Every one of them was more or less stunned a little by it, and all of them said "ok but I'm getting the next one". Keep in mind, these are very casual dates, sometimes just coffee, with very low expectations of a relationship coming out of it. (Not that I wouldn't pay for a great steak for a guy on a date and I have....but never a first date).
> 
> So I don't want you to think that there are all these men out there throwing the check at their dates and saying hey babe, pay the bill. I've never experienced that nor heard of any friend IRL experience it. I think you maybe have just pictured this happening (or maybe heard of someone) and assumed it goes further than it does.
> 
> I do understand your overall opinion of the matter however, and I respect your old school stance.


----------



## MEM2020

Personal,

I think the reason you get laid so much is that you are genuinely funny. Your posts make me laugh out loud. 

Not saying I want to sleep with you - sorry man - but you have the wrong equipment for me. 

But I will say that in my experience almost 100% correlation between women finding me funny and those same women wanting to have sex with me.....

--------
Ele,
Please don't delete me for thread jacking. I promise to stop. 

All,
Yes - Alpha Ele - has deleted my posts in the past for thread jacking. I deserved it - but still - sheesh - what ever happened to professional courtesy.... 



Personal said:


> So that must be why most of the women I dated including my wife, wanted to pay for themselves and me on our first dates. I guess all of those women must have been worried that if I payed for myself, I would have mistakenly presumed we were just two acquaintances having dinner.


----------



## 269370

How do 'friends with benefits' approach the bill situation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## frusdil

lovelygirl said:


> :surprise:
> 
> It turned you that you married this guy (lol) but I don't know if I'd even consider a second date with a guy who asked me to split the bill (especially on the first date), no matter how much he apologised.


I did  I guess I figured that everyone deserves a second chance, and the fact that he listened to what I said, and tried to understand why I felt the way I did and then took it on board meant a lot to me. 

We both saw something in the other that we thought was worth pursuing...he paid for all our dates but in the end he got a loving, devoted wife who puts him above all others, and proud, loving and devoted stepmum to his daughter. I got the family I've always wanted - I'd say our gamble paid off :wink2:


----------



## MrsHolland

inmyprime said:


> How do 'friends with benefits' approach the bill situation?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Interesting question, that main FWB I had was a blast and lots of fun, we declared we had "like" for each other but there was no love or future. We would go for a bike ride, have sex then he would bake me a cake or slice. I never stayed the night and we did not go out to dinner so no need for $$$.

Have had a few very casual situations and short term men all of whom paid for all dates. I only pay on dates with men I am serious about


----------



## Andy1001

inmyprime said:


> How do 'friends with benefits' approach the bill situation?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I would always pay for breakfast if she was hungry.


----------



## TaDor

inmyprime said:


> How do 'friends with benefits' approach the bill situation?


The exact same way if you were Friends Without the benefits.

Oh, sleeping over is okay as well, especially if you end up drunk, etc. But yeah... with my FWB, there was never a "date" to impress. We either paid 50/50 on a motel or hotel room - or had sex her place or mine... she buy drinks or I buy drinks. For the most part, anything that required money - was nothing noteworthy.

The important thing about FWB - to keep it FWB. Too much "benefits" = the woman may start to become attached. I had 3 that brought it up about "wanting more" - two of them kept that in check. One of them kept pressing for "dating" or something. So for her, I told her "no more fooling around, we're just friends". Even mutual friends told her she needed to cool her jets. FWB things to do: DO NOT text all the time, especially right after sex. I'd say, no more than 2~4 times a month - like once a week at most. Do not string anyone along.


----------



## jld

TaDor said:


> The exact same way if you were Friends Without the benefits.
> 
> Oh, sleeping over is okay as well, especially if you end up drunk, etc. But yeah... with my FWB, there was never a "date" to impress. We either paid 50/50 on a motel or hotel room - or had sex her place or mine... she buy drinks or I buy drinks. For the most part, anything that required money - was nothing noteworthy.
> 
> The important thing about FWB - to keep it FWB. Too much "benefits" = the woman may start to become attached. I had 3 that brought it up about "wanting more" - two of them kept that in check. One of them kept pressing for "dating" or something. So for her, I told her "no more fooling around, we're just friends". Even mutual friends told her she needed to cool her jets. FWB things to do: DO NOT text all the time, especially right after sex. I'd say, no more than 2~4 times a month - like once a week at most. Do not string anyone along.


This could be a good warning post for any woman considering this sort of relationship.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> This could be a good warning post for any woman considering this sort of relationship.


Friends with benefits are a great idea if you aren't around much.When I was employed I traveled all the time and lived in hotels for months at a time.It was great when I got home to have someone you could call at the last minute to go to dinner or whatever.I can't see how it can work if you are in the same area as them all the time because eventually emotions are going to enter the equation.It goes from fwb to jealousy very quickly.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> Friends with benefits are a great idea if you aren't around much.When I was employed I traveled all the time and lived in hotels for months at a time.It was great when I got home to have someone you could call at the last minute to go to dinner or whatever.I can't see how it can work if you are in the same area as them all the time because eventually emotions are going to enter the equation.It goes from fwb to jealousy very quickly.


Sounds like a bad idea all around, imo. At least for most women.

But this is probably a t/j. Back to who pays for dates . . .


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> Sounds like a bad idea all around, imo. At least for most women.
> 
> But this is probably a t/j. Back to who pays for dates . . .


You know I became a Dad during this thread,I will have to save it.lol


----------



## NextTimeAround

jld said:


> This could be a good warning post for any woman considering this sort of relationship.


One important thing for women to remember is that it will deter other men from wanting to date you. So if a woman is still looking she needs to be discreet. Perhaps FWB a guy completely outside of your social circle and never let him meet your other friends.


----------



## MrsHolland

jld said:


> Sounds like a bad idea all around, imo. At least for most women.
> 
> But this is probably a t/j. Back to who pays for dates . . .


Why? 

It is fairly standard in my circle, can't see why it is a bad idea for women in particular and not men, care to explain your thoughts on this.


----------



## jld

MrsHolland said:


> Why?
> 
> It is fairly standard in my circle, can't see why it is a bad idea for women in particular and not men, care to explain your thoughts on this.


If you want to start another thread, I will. OP expressed some concerns about t/js here earlier.


----------



## TaDor

jld said:


> This could be a good warning post for any woman considering this sort of relationship.


How so? Its not abusive. Both parties get what they want (M / F or M / M or F / F ). Its safer and easier than ONS... there is friendship still.

The only "guide" about this, is ways to not turn it into something more. And its okay *IF* it does become something more if it's between two consenting adults who are not in a committed relationship with anyone else. 

Why the hell is sex between a man and a woman = she is being used?


----------



## TaDor

NextTimeAround said:


> One important thing for women to remember is that it will deter other men from wanting to date you. So if a woman is still looking she needs to be discreet. Perhaps FWB a guy completely outside of your social circle and never let him meet your other friends.


That is the guy's problem. I notice you have no issues with the GUYS doing FWB... its all on the woman. How dare she get laid unless she is wife or something.

FWB is about having a sexual relationship that is not public - usually. Sometimes it is or semi-public. FWB can end at a moments notice (one or both of them are dating someone they want to take to the next level). If its someone you don't want anyone to know you are having sex with - then it's not FWB, it's a bootycall.


----------



## TaDor

Who should pay for dates. Well, in typical western society - the men asks the women out... and therefore, he is expected to pay. Some men will have no issues with a woman paying half.
I preferred if women would pay for half, or pay for the 2nd date (as long as its in the same price range as the 1st hehehe). Of course some eastern/mid-eastern cultures - there is no dating/limited dating for pre-arranged weddings. (sigh)

For decades or hundreds of years and more - men have to show worth to a woman with money, power and or strength. Since we don't usually beat the crap out of each other - its money.

Perhaps more input from women would be insightful. How many women offered to buy dinner with a man? How do they feel about it? 

Or what if HE offered to only pay for half? I think that would be RUDE, since he wanted to TAKE HER OUT to dinner. If she asked the guy out, then I see that being more workable.


----------



## NextTimeAround

TaDor said:


> *That is the guy's problem.* If a woman is looking for a long term relationship and can't understand why guys are not interesed in her, this could be HER problem. *I notice you have no issues with the GUYS doing FWB* If there is a problem for men doing FWB, then a man or one of their advocates can be vocal here and tell us what that problem could be. ... *its all on the woman.* I did not say that. *How dare she get laid unless she is wife or something.* boy are you projecting.
> 
> *FWB is about having a sexual relationship that is not public *- Yes, and my experience tells me that sometimes the FWB partner is not always discrete. *usually.* ????? *Sometimes it is or semi-public.* Please elaborate. FWB can end at a moments notice (one or both of them are dating someone they want to take to the next level). *If its someone you don't want anyone to know you are having sex with - then it's not FWB, it's a bootycall.* that's your interpretation.



Warning ------ Potential threadjack........ but just to settle this.....

TaDor, I can't tell whether you are male or female. but you do seem angry.


----------



## TaDor

But ya keep going at it, eh?

So what if its a guy who wants a LTR and can't understand why women are not interested in him? - er, what business is it with the other person, and again - you have made the woman, the "bad one.". Didn't know that one sex needed a matching sex to be an advocate. I'm not projecting, I am assuming because it seems you are shaming women for being FWB. We derailed from the thread because FWB don't date usually - and it was brought up.

Elaborate? Uh, some people will tell others they are in a FWB relationship - maybe on FB, maybe to their closest friends, maybe nobody.

I am not angry.


----------



## MrsHolland

NextTimeAround said:


> Warning ------ Potential threadjack........ but just to settle this.....
> 
> TaDor, I can't tell whether you are male or female. *but you do seem angry*.


I did not read any anger into his words. More like he is giving it straight, why is that anger? 

FWB is not for everyone and if it is not for you then cool but if you don't have any first hand experience with this style of "relationship" then you are just making assumptions and judgments based on conjecture and nothing more.

And to get it back on track.... FWB often involves very little money being spent so it is not such a big issue who pays.


----------



## lovelygirl

Guys, stop thread jacking!!

I created a thread for you to go on with the discussion..

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/375161-fwb-how-do-you-handle.html#post17677057

back to who pays on dates..


----------



## lovelygirl

MrsHolland said:


> And to get it back on track.... FWB often involves very little money being spent so it is not such a big issue who pays.


I do agree that FWB doesn't have to involve any money. Actually, it's only about sex and that's it. Spending money is a real waste.


----------



## MrsHolland

lovelygirl said:


> I do agree that FWB doesn't have to involve any money. *Actually, it's only about sex and that's it.* Spending money is a real waste.


That is not correct. Sure this type of relationship does not have to involve spending money on dates which was the question asked but it is not only about sex, not by a long shot. That is a very misinformed suggestion.


----------



## Andy1001

MrsHolland said:


> That is not correct. Sure this type of relationship does not have to involve spending money on dates which was the question asked but it is not only about sex, not by a long shot. That is a very misinformed suggestion.


I agree with you on this.I would often have one day or even half day free in some city and to have someone to spend it with was great.I would try to make sure she had a great time and sometimes that would just mean going for a hike,it didn't have to be expensive but if she wanted to eat in a five star restaurant we could do that too.It all depends on the circumstances but the end result was always the same.


----------



## MrsHolland

Andy1001 said:


> I agree with you on this.I would often have one day or even half day free in some city and to have someone to spend it with was great.I would try to make sure she had a great time and sometimes that would just mean going for a hike,it didn't have to be expensive but if she wanted to eat in a five star restaurant we could do that too.It all depends on the circumstances but the end result was always the same.


As I mentioned on this or another thread, one of my FWBs was so much fun. Our common interest was cycling and that was something we did often, then sex, then food


----------



## TaDor

lovelygirl said:


> I do agree that FWB doesn't have to involve any money. Actually, it's only about sex and that's it. Spending money is a real waste.


Then you promptly thread jack!  hahahaha


----------



## ejamison22

EunuchMonk said:


> I would pay (and there are many asides as to why) BUT I can understand why some men don't want to. They say the equality movement should make all those old ideas of chivalry go out the window (which are kinda sexist, if you really think about it). Because feminist have all these ways to undercut men's role in relationships. It's like they want to give a man the responsibilities of manhood but not the privileges.
> 
> They may say, "Oh, a man should pay, Be a man."
> Man, "Who is the head of the relationship?"
> Her, "There is no head, you chauvinist. We are both our own heads."
> Man, "Well, as equals, we will split the bill 50/50."
> *drops his half and walks off*
> 
> Since back then men were the only ones working and making money it made sense for them to be the ones paying. Now with women finding success just as often -- if not more often -- as men, they should have no problem chipping in on the cheque. And not have this entitled attitude to a man's money.
> 
> Couple that with the fact that many date for fun, to get a good time and a free meal and it makes you wary of being used.
> 
> What @Andy1001 says makes sense too. If you asked her out then it would makes sense that you would pay.


If I could like your response more than once, I would indefinitely. Well said. 

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk


----------



## ejamison22

...There seems to be a sort of stigma, I guess you can say, that some women are putting on men, as if they are scumbags if they don't want to battle to the death for who pays for the meal. I, personally, feel/think/whatever that if it really if THAT big of a ****ing deal who is paying for the meal, you might want to rethink your priorities and the "right" characteristics of the "perfect" mate. Us womenfolk, will never be completely happy with everything we have no matter what. We could have everything we have always wanted, including our dream man(or woman) and guaranteed within 30 secs we'd say "oh wow this is really nice, BUT wouldn't it be even better if *blah* *blah* *blah* *insert some random ridiculous request that could have waited to be done until the next day*" i mean am I the only one who would rather have a man who decides he doesn't want to waste time debating about who's picking up the tab, and is down for doing whatever makes you BOTH happy? Here's an idea, to solve this issue; MEN start taking women to the local park and BBQ lol so many of us would absolutely love that...But then again so many of us actually would love that lol so I guess you are screwed either way. Good luck. If a woman is caring that much about whether or not her man date is paying or her stuff then she better be ready to be little Suzie ****ing Homemaker because that comes with the territory. You can't expect one and not give the other. Not fair. 

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk


----------



## Real talk

This is why it's important to have self confidence and worth as a man. Men are socialized into thinking manhood equates to putting women on a pedestal and thinking their value is worth more than you're own. Which is why insecure men think they owe women compensation for dates or they have to pay for their company. 

I used to think this too when I was over weight and socially awkward. Then I got myself together an realize I shouldn't have to prove myself to a woman. We at minimum need to prove ourselves to each other. And considering modern women are as deep as a puddle in a rain shower and I have high SMV, she likely needs to prove herself to me. 

That said I usually pay for the first date. But because it's just easier that way, not because I'm self loathing enough to think I owe it to a woman. After that initial date I always tell them when I pay that they have the next check. And they agree every time. If a woman recognizes your worth she'll pull out her wallet and pay for the whole thing with a smile on her face. 

My current GF is an ex model who still has NFL and NBA players she knew in college trying to nab her. And she STILL pays for stuff with no problem and always have. If she's contributing then you better believe every other woman will.


----------



## _anonymous_

lovelygirl said:


> Do you think you should pay most of the time or you dislike it when you're the one paying most of/all the time?
> Would you prefer she paid most of the time or you think both partners should take turns?
> Is there any difference if you're at the early stages of dating/relationship ?


By traditional gender roles, the man is supposed to be the provider and the woman is supposed to be barefoot, pregnant, at home, actually making the house. I was taught this as I grew up, in a rather closed-minded environment.

Later in my life, when I left the social setting of my youth and ventured into university, I exposed myself to more influences that got me thinking along different lines: gender equality. The topic is heard about relentlessly in the adult world, whether it's through mainstream media, initiatives at one's employer, or the subject of academic research.

Two very different views of women offer two sets of answers to your questions. If a woman is seen as financially dependent, the man should assume his traditional role of provider, whether dating or in a more serious relationship. If the woman is seen as financially independent, the man expects a "tit for tat" arrangement, where he pays and then she pays (wash, rinse, repeat). Unfortunately, our society has double standards when it comes to men and women being equals, and in many places (including the realm of relationships), women get special treatment. This is very much a societal norm, hence some men expecting "tit for tat" arrangements will still pay for their dates at some point (i.e. beyond a first or second date). I was among these men, just like a lot of other guys.

Looking at this another way, guys who view dating as an economic transaction will find paying acceptable, as along as the benefits of paying across dates outweigh the costs. If a guy wants casual sex, he'll buy a gal some coffees and a few meals without a hitch, as long as that furthers his cause with enough (though not necessarily all) women he dates. :|


----------



## EllisRedding

Funny side note, on the Blown Off radio segment I hear on my way to work this morning this exact topic came up.

Two people went on date, she offered to pay for half the bill but he insisted on paying for the entire bill. She had no problems with this. However, he supposedly made it a point to remind her several times during the date that he paid the bill. The radio host asked him if this was done trying to deposit money in the "booty bank" (i.e. I paid for dinner so I expect a little extra something at the end). He claimed that it wasn't the case, he just wanted her to really know that if she was with him he would take care of her, how "manly" he was. 

Separately, I do wonder how she would have reacted if when she offered to pay 1/2 he took her up on that. She mentioned she offered to pay for 1/2 simply b/c she didn't appear "prissy", but was happy that he paid because that was the man thing to do....


----------



## _anonymous_

On some of my past dates, I remember how some independent women were very quick to pay their bill, as if to short-circuit the chance that I might want to pay for them. This was interesting, because it gave me the impression that the women wanted to short-circuit my expectations of "something more" on the first date, even if that "something more" was only a kiss. The inherent "information asymmetries" in dating give rise to some odd behaviors as people try to figure out each others' objectives and find a good match.


----------



## NextTimeAround

_anonymous_ said:


> On some of my past dates, I remember how some independent women were very quick to pay their bill, as if to short-circuit the chance that I might want to pay for them. This was interesting, because it gave me the impression that the women wanted to short-circuit my expectations of "something more" on the first date, even if that "something more" was only a kiss. The inherent "information asymmetries" in dating give rise to some odd behaviors as people try to figure out each others' objectives and find a good match.


One guy told me that when a woman insists on paying she is trying to say "I don't want to see you again."


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

About 8-10 years ago when I was doing the online dating thing, I became quite active on the Plenty of Fish message forums.

I saw a pattern over the couple of years I was a member - many random women who came and went on those forums stated that they always tried to make sure to pay their half of the bill on a date when they knew they *weren't* interested in a second date with that person. It was a very, very common theme I saw posted over and over. I just wonder if that still holds true 10 years later.


----------



## Personal

NextTimeAround said:


> One guy told me that when a woman insists on paying she is trying to say "I don't want to see you again."


In my experience of dating, albeit in the dark ages of 1992 through 1996 when I was a young chap of 21-25. Whenever a woman paid for all or half, it always led to sex on the first through fourth date. Whereas through that time, it didn't always lead to sex whenever I paid for all of it.

For the most part though, dating was the slow path to sharing sex with a woman. Since it wasn't uncommon for me to go to a party or a nightclub and have different women and sometimes men approach me. Then following some banter would ask me to have sex with them or more crudely and less frequently offer me sex in the first instance.

What would usually happen, was I would have sex with a woman (well the ones I said yes to) at a party, nightclub or their place. Who would say "you're cute/pretty/handsome" or "you have nice eyes/smile etc". Then on some occasions we would then start dating afterwards if we both wanted more, where we would both share the costs of dating from the beginning.

Or I would be asked out on a date by a woman who knew me from one of my social circles, work or had just met me etc. Then they would most often usually pay, or we would share the costs (I always would offer to pay though). Where we would invariably have sex by the fourth date (usually through their initiation or request).

The only times when I didn't have sex with a woman I dated, was on a few occasions when I did the pursuing, asking out and covered all costs.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Personal said:


> In my experience of dating, albeit in the dark ages of 1992 through 1996 when I was a young chap of 21-25. Whenever a woman paid for all or half, it always led to sex on the first through fourth date. Whereas through that time, it didn't always lead to sex whenever I paid for all of it.
> 
> 
> Or I would be asked out on a date by a woman who knew me from one of my social circles, work or had just met me etc. Then they would most often usually pay, or we would share the costs (I always would offer to pay though). Where we would invariably have sex by the fourth date (usually through their initiation or request).
> 
> The only times when I didn't have sex with a woman I dated, was on a few occasions when I did the pursuing, asking out and covered all costs.


Dividing most of your dating history into 2 groups:

1. those women who paid AND had sex with you by the fourth date
2. those who expected you to pay for everything and you never had sex with them (by what date did you usually determine this?)

What was your opinion of these two groups in real time / at that time?

Did you think that members of Group 1 were easy and therefore of no value?

Did you think that members of Group 2 were challenging / of quality / worth your valuable resources (time, money, favors, etc) because if they made you wait they "knew their value" or something like that?


----------



## Wolf1974

She'sStillGotIt said:


> About 8-10 years ago when I was doing the online dating thing, I became quite active on the Plenty of Fish message forums.
> 
> I saw a pattern over the couple of years I was a member - many random women who came and went on those forums stated that they always tried to make sure to pay their half of the bill on a date when they knew they *weren't* interested in a second date with that person. It was a very, very common theme I saw posted over and over. I just wonder if that still holds true 10 years later.


I had never heard that about women who paid for 1/2 or part of dating but I have heard and experienced a woman who insisted on paying for the whole thing not being interested.

Most the women I have met wanted to contribute. Many just wanted to avoid any feelings of obligation.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Awww, c'mon..... I was hoping to get some thoughtful responses to my post no. 458.

Opinions from both men and woman are welcomed.


----------



## DustyDog

lovelygirl said:


> I friend of mine, 35 y.o. is single and hasn't been in a realtionship for 3 years now. During one of our discussions, she said "I don't need just a guy in my life... I need a man. But where are men today? To even think that they can't even pay you a dinner? _A real man wouldn't allow me to pay for the dinner, even if I insisted on doing so..._".
> 
> This got me thinking if men here agree with this saying or not.
> 
> Do you think you should pay most of the time or you dislike it when you're the one paying most of/all the time?
> Would you prefer she paid most of the time?
> or you think both partners should take turns?
> Is there any difference if you're at the early stages of dating/relationship ?
> 
> I will say my opinion later.


IMO, anybody who thinks in such a black-and-white manner probably doesn't see 99% of the rainbow of colors that make up real life.

Who pays on dates? What a wonderful first topic to use as a means of learning how to collaborate with each other!!!


----------



## Personal

NextTimeAround said:


> Awww, c'mon..... I was hoping to get some thoughtful responses to my post no. 458.
> 
> Opinions from both men and woman are welcomed.


I'll respond when I've got time and am not using my iPad.


----------



## Wolf1974

NextTimeAround said:


> Dividing most of your dating history into 2 groups:
> 
> 1. those women who paid AND had sex with you by the fourth date
> 2. those who expected you to pay for everything and you never had sex with them (by what date did you usually determine this?)
> 
> What was your opinion of these two groups in real time / at that time?
> 
> my dating history was expansive. I had a lot of first dates (150 or so). Far fewer second dates, less than a dozen third dates 7 of which lead to relationships lasting longer than 6 months.
> 
> My opinion on group one is that they value themselves, me and the realtionship trying to be built. They don't want to be a sideline passenger in the foundation building they want an active roll.
> 
> My opinion on group two is they are entitled. They want an unequal relationship dynamic.... my personal opinion is that this is how they will approach the whole relationship. What can you give me and what can I take. Generally doesn't take 4 dates to figure this out though
> 
> Did you think that members of Group 1 were easy and therefore of no value?
> 
> contrary I think they are full of self worth. They don't feel entitled to anything and want to be partners and contribute. Very sexy
> 
> Did you think that members of Group 2 were challenging / of quality / worth your valuable resources (time, money, favors, etc) because if they made you wait they "knew their value" or something like that?


I know you probably didn't mean it like this but group two sounds like game players to me. Like something out of a rule book on how to attract men when in fact it may be a turn off to many. Game playing at any time is a turn off. Selfishness is a turn off. Entitlement is a turnoff. Group two would have little appeal to me and since very few made it to date two and none to date three I am comfortable in the fact that we just aren't compatible.


----------



## Personal

NextTimeAround said:


> Dividing most of your dating history into 2 groups:
> 
> 1. those women who paid AND had sex with you by the fourth date
> 2. those who expected you to pay for everything and you never had sex with them (by what date did you usually determine this?)


Most of my dating history was of having sex with women who I had just met at parties, pubs and nightclub etc, which was then sometimes followed by dating them (inclusive of my ex-wife). Or of women asking me out on dates that I said yes to, who I knew from different social circles or work (inclusive of my wife).

Plus a few women who I asked out and had sex with, which includes my third longest sexual relationship partner.

What you call Group 2, is just four women.

Of those four women, two didn't go past the first date and one didn't get past the second date, because I didn't get the feeling that they wanted to have sex with me (no sexual tension to the point that the air would feel thick and buzzing). While I let the last woman go after our third (fourth date if you count coming to mine), because of mixed signals.



NextTimeAround said:


> What was your opinion of these two groups in real time / at that time?


My opinion of all that I dated or had sex with at the time was the same. If I was dating someone or having sex with them, with one exception in the first instance I considered them all to be potentially worthy of being in an ongoing interminable sexual relationship with me.



NextTimeAround said:


> Did you think that members of Group 1 were easy and therefore of no value?


No I didn't/don't think any of the women I have had sex with were easy or of no value. In fact I like/d the fact that those women had sex with me within minutes or hours of meeting me, through to having sex with me on the first date to the fourth date in the first instance.

I liked them, they liked me and at the time we all wanted to share sex with each other, which is in my opinion the whole point of dating and establishing ongoing sexual relationships.



NextTimeAround said:


> Did you think that members of Group 2 were challenging / of quality / worth your valuable resources (time, money, favors, etc) because if they made you wait they "knew their value" or something like that?


Excempting one who was all over the place in terms of what she wanted. The other three didn't make me wait (it was too early to tell if they were making me wait), I just didn't have sex with them.

That said I didn't/don't think the members of Group 2 were particularly challenging at all, nor did/do I think they were of greater or lesser quality than anyone else I dated. The only difference between them and the others is I didn't sense any sexual desire and was getting mixed signals with one of them.

The one who was all over the place, I dated once (I asked her out so I paid) in 1993 and slept with her (the counting sheep kind) at her place sans sexual intercourse. Yet I did kiss her nipples and other stuff etc, yet she said that she had just broken up with a boyfriend and wasn't sure if she wanted more, so we didn't do more than that.

Then she got upset with me a couple of days later, because she thought I had told some of our friends I spent the night with her. I told nobody, yet that didn't stop my flatmate telling people I didn't come home when I went on a date with her. So thus ended that relationship in 1993.

Then in 1996 just before my wife asked me out on our first date, we caught up again and went on two dates where I paid all, (I did the asking) and she came over to my place one night after that, which didn't cost me anything. Yet again as before I slept with her after sans sexual intercourse.

She was all on/off and stop/go about sex, which was something I had never experienced before. Since I didn't care for the run around and didn't lack sexual opportunities, I just didn't ask her out again after that.

At the end of the day I figure many of us are all trying to achieve the same end through different valid approaches.

If one is withholding sex in dating, I figure they're for the most part doing it for religious reasons and or they think sex is sacred etc. So they choose to develop an emotional relationship before they invest in a sexual one.

Likewise when I had sex early on in dating, it is because I am not religious, don't consider sex to be sacred and am unwilling to invest in anyone emotionally in a sexual relationship before I know the sex is good.

People who follow the former or the latter are both as capable or incapable as the other, in establishing successful ongoing long term sexual relationships with likeminded people.


----------



## arbitrator

EllisRedding said:


> Funny side note, on the Blown Off radio segment I hear on my way to work this morning this exact topic came up.
> 
> Two people went on date, she offered to pay for half the bill but he insisted on paying for the entire bill. She had no problems with this. However, he supposedly made it a point to remind her several times during the date that he paid the bill. The radio host asked him if this was done trying to deposit money in the "booty bank" (i.e. I paid for dinner so I expect a little extra something at the end). He claimed that it wasn't the case, he just wanted her to really know that if she was with him he would take care of her, how "manly" he was.
> 
> Separately, I do wonder how she would have reacted if when she offered to pay 1/2 he took her up on that. She mentioned she offered to pay for 1/2 simply b/c she didn't appear "prissy", but was happy that he paid because that was the man thing to do....


*Sounds greatly like his entire aim in paying for the date is pretty much predicated on his ages old, masculine-held,  quid pro quo  belief system, in that by his monetary payment for such, that she'll "reward" him with a little well-deserved "wuzz" at the end of the evening!*


----------



## _anonymous_

Keep coming back to this thread. Will make a post now contrary to all my previous posts on this subject.

The guy should always attempt to pay, and when allowed to pay, he should pay the most possible of the bill.

The combination of societal norms for men paying, the gender wage gap, and common sense urge me to make this recommendation, and it is a good one. 

Guys, whatever your objective (whether it's sex, long-term relationships, or just a casual get-together), you're better off paying as much of the bill as possible. Be considerate. Be benevolent. Be altruistic. Woman of all sorts will find these things sexy.

For guys with budget constraints, pick cheaper options for dates. Go on a hike, to the park, on a picnic, or prepare your date a nice meal. The same principle applies though--pay as much as you can.

Whatever the man's objective from dating, his outcome will be best (on average, across dates) when paying.


----------



## Holdingontoit

Yes, guys should always pay. That is the optimal strategy for guys who want to maximize the return from their dating time and effort.

Still, women are foolish to think that an unequal playing field in the dating arena will not leak into all other areas of human endeavor. Dating and mating is too central a human activity not to bleed into everything else.


----------



## jld

Holdingontoit said:


> Yes, guys should always pay. That is the optimal strategy for guys who want to maximize the return from their dating time and effort.
> 
> Still, women are foolish to think that an unequal playing field in the dating arena will not leak into all other areas of human endeavor. Dating and mating is too central a human activity not to bleed into everything else.


Unequal does not necessarily have to mean unpleasurable, nor disrespected.


----------



## Holdingontoit

@jld: No, but the unspoken assumption behind "he should always pay" is that her sitting down with him is "worth" more than him sitting down with her. Once you start form the unspoken assumption that women in general and as a group are more valuable than men in the dating arena, all sorts of emotional reactions are unleashed. Some men won't mind the distinction. Some will. Thinking that the men who resent the inequality in dating won't be motivated to take "revenge" in other arenas is idealistic and unrealistic. Saying "well, those are low quality men so they don't matter" is equally idealistic and unrealistic. They are your co-workers. Expecting them to treat women equally at work when they are expected to sacrifice themselves for women every Saturday night is equally unrealistic.

If his sitting down in the chair on Saturday isn't worth the same as his date sitting down, and he has to make up for the deficit by paying her tab, then a substantial number of men are going to arrive at work Monday morning primed to make sure they climb higher on the job ladder than the women they hope to date. Thinking they will do it purely by outperforming and not at least in part by sabotaging the women is, again, unrealistic and idealistic. Like I said, sending the message en masse "we are worth more than you" in dating is inevitably going to lead to a backlash with no small number of men saying "we'll show you who is worth less" at work. Yin and yang. Inseparable. If you want to break the circle, you have to smash both sides.


----------



## jld

Holdingontoit said:


> @jld: No, but the unspoken assumption behind "he should always pay" is that her sitting down with him is "worth" more than him sitting down with her. Once you start form the unspoken assumption that women in general and as a group are more valuable than men in the dating arena, all sorts of emotional reactions are unleashed. Some men won't mind the distinction. Some will. Thinking that the men who resent the inequality in dating won't be motivated to take "revenge" in other arenas is idealistic and unrealistic. Saying "well, those are low quality men so they don't matter" is equally idealistic and unrealistic. They are your co-workers. Expecting them to treat women equally at work when they are expected to sacrifice themselves for women every Saturday night is equally unrealistic.
> 
> If his sitting down in the chair on Saturday isn't worth the same as his date sitting down, and he has to make up for the deficit by paying her tab, then a substantial number of men are going to arrive at work Monday morning primed to make sure they climb higher on the job ladder than the women they hope to date. Thinking they will do it purely by outperforming and not at least in part by sabotaging the women is, again, unrealistic and idealistic. Like I said, sending the message en masse "we are worth more than you" in dating is inevitably going to lead to a backlash with no small number of men saying "we'll show you who is worth less" at work. Yin and yang. Inseparable. If you want to break the circle, you have to smash both sides.


You have clearly thought about this much more deeply than I have, Holding.

Suffice it to say that I think there is a lot of pleasure for both sexes in the dance between them, and that some men are happy to pay for the tickets.


----------



## wild jade

It's interesting, the different takes on this. Talk to one group, and get arguments about how men are the natural born leaders and any woman who is more successful or smarter or whatever is a unfeminine competitve insubordinate ballbuster who can't manage a successful relationship. Talk to another group, and all of a sudden it's about how women shouldn't expect to be led or taken care of and should be more independent.

Really goes to show just how different we are in our perspectives about the way this ol' world of ours is and should be.


----------



## Holdingontoit

jld said:


> Suffice it to say that I think there is a lot of pleasure for both sexes in the dance between them, and that some men are happy to pay for the tickets.


Yes, I am acutely aware that I missed out on the enjoying the dance part.

Funniest thing is, as far as I can recall, I paid the full tab on every date I ever went on except the first date with H2. Go figure.


----------



## NextTimeAround

jld said:


> You have clearly thought about this much more deeply than I have, Holding.
> 
> Suffice it to say that I think there is a lot of pleasure for both sexes in the dance between them, and that some men are happy to pay for the tickets.


It's interesting to contemplate the dating rituals in decades before. It seems to me that they were designed to give the woman the appearance that she was valuable and in demand.

For example, the "don't accept a date for Saturday when offered after Wednesday." I remember a friend of my brother's told me that he invited a girl from a church for a date. After she spoke to her mother, she told him that she couldn't say yes for this weekend, but she could go out with him for next weekend. He had to explain to me that he had asked her out too late in the week. And this was the '70s.

So I can see where some people might assume that a woman is desperate if she offers to pay / to provide her own transportation and so on.


----------



## Tillaan

This is a fascinating thread. I've been following it from the beginning and it's got me wondering. This seems like it could be a very interesting topic for one of those early dates as it covers so many aspects on relationships, equality, and expectations in one subject not to mention no one would see the topic coming and be prepared with answers. I'm curious if anyone else would agree you could potentially determine a lot about someone from how they responded to this subject. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WilliamM

I am an old fashioned man.

When I was young women did not have equal rights in the United States, where I live. Oh, wait, they still don't. Equal pay? No, not yet. Well, maybe some day.

So on two counts I think the man should pay, always.

I date only my wife, so my opinion likely doesn't count. My wife hasn't worked in a lot of years. She got a job once, but I made her pay taxes as if her income was extra, and I continued to pay taxes as if my income was our sole income. After a few months of making only a few dollars an hour my wife quit. I suppose if she could have gotten a job making over 20% of what I make I may have been more interested in her continuing to work. She enjoys being a kept woman, anyway.

When we had been married for about 7 years we went to a restaurant and my wife had the money in her purse for some reason. She was shocked and made a big issue out of getting me to go outside with her so she could give me the money in secret, because it is so important to her that the man has to be the one to pay. Always, the man must be the one to pay for everything.


----------



## jld

Holdingontoit said:


> Yes, I am acutely aware that I missed out on the enjoying the dance part.
> 
> Funniest thing is, as far as I can recall, I paid the full tab on every date I ever went on except the first date with H2. Go figure.


She paid for the first date? She asked you out first?


----------



## Real talk

_anonymous_ said:


> Keep coming back to this thread. Will make a post now contrary to all my previous posts on this subject.
> 
> The guy should always attempt to pay, and when allowed to pay, he should pay the most possible of the bill.
> 
> The combination of societal norms for men paying, the gender wage gap, and common sense urge me to make this recommendation, and it is a good one.
> 
> Guys, whatever your objective (whether it's sex, long-term relationships, or just a casual get-together), you're better off paying as much of the bill as possible. Be considerate. Be benevolent. Be altruistic. Woman of all sorts will find these things sexy.
> 
> For guys with budget constraints, pick cheaper options for dates. Go on a hike, to the park, on a picnic, or prepare your date a nice meal. The same principle applies though--pay as much as you can.
> 
> Whatever the man's objective from dating, his outcome will be best (on average, across dates) when paying.


The arbitrary figures surrounding the wage gap are irrelevant at an individual level. What do the career paths of women who aren't the woman I'm dating now have to do with what I should sacrifice at the moment. If you willingly choose to date a woman who you know has less money that's one thing. But under your ideology a white woman should pay the if she dates a man from a demographic that doesn't earn as much. 

Secondly women don't find paying for dates sexy. The only thing women find sexy are sexy men. If you don't check all the boxes and pay it's going to do nothing for you. There is no reason for you to accept all the risk when dating in the current uncertain environment. 

Men shouldn't date based like they're auditioning for a movie role. Like they're puppies trying to get chose at a kennel. Do what benefits you, not everyone else. The more men stop associating masculinity with being taken advantage of the sooner collectively men can start commanding more from women than their presence. 

This encouragement of entitlement has done nothing but create a population of women who are never satisfied because they're too comfortable on their pedestal and a group of men who are taught to settle for scraps only to grow to realize they deserve more.


----------



## _anonymous_

Real talk said:


> The arbitrary figures surrounding the wage gap are irrelevant at an individual level. What do the career paths of women who aren't the woman I'm dating now have to do with what I should sacrifice at the moment. If you willingly choose to date a woman who you know has less money that's one thing. But under your ideology a white woman should pay the if she dates a man from a demographic that doesn't earn as much.


It seems like you're suggesting that your level of payment on a date should be based on your date's income, not trends across individuals? Realize that you don't know with certainty the earnings of your date, or that of most other women. It's private information. Given that uncertainty, I would argue that what people generally believe about men's pay vs. women's pay is somewhat relevant. Most woman believe there's a gender wage gap, hence they'll believe that guys (on average) have more disposable income to pay, and hence should pay. 

This belief doesn't even depend on the validity of the gender wage gap hypothesis! There are a lot of factors that legitimately explain the gender wage gap (hiatus from work, education/experience levels, type of work, etc.)... I find myself doubtful in "the gap" half of the time. However, too many people take arguments at face value, and the same applies here. Because the gender wage gap is discussed extensively in our society, on average, people believe it is real. 



Real talk said:


> Men shouldn't date based like they're auditioning for a movie role. Like they're puppies trying to get chose at a kennel. Do what benefits you, not everyone else. The more men stop associating masculinity with being taken advantage of the sooner collectively men can start commanding more from women than their presence.
> 
> This encouragement of entitlement has done nothing but create a population of women who are never satisfied because they're too comfortable on their pedestal and a group of men who are taught to settle for scraps only to grow to realize they deserve more.


I see your points. In general, I feel that society needs to make up its mind regarding gender roles, and put an end to the double standards. If men and women are equals, then the same should be expected of men and women. If men and women are not equals, as is the premise behind traditional gender roles, different things should be expected of men and women.

In this society, I honestly fear the prospect of raising a boy into a real man, given all of the forces that are at odds with true, "non-toxic" masculinity. There are perhaps few greater challenges at present.

All of this aside, I stand my ground with my change of mind over who should pay on dates. On average, for the best outcome, the guy should pay. I'm hard pressed to believe that any one dude in the developed world who stops paying for his dates is going to start any kind of revolution for the whole of men. Guys should maximize their payoff on an individual level by paying.


----------



## Holdingontoit

jld said:


> She paid for the first date? She asked you out first?


Blind date. She was working in NYC making about the same as me. Close to $100k. When the check came, she offered to pay half. I asked if she was sure, she said she was, so I let her pay half. I was worried that she would be insulted if I insisted on paying. Years later she told me that was a mistake and almost got me "next"-ed.


----------



## Andy1001

NextTimeAround said:


> It's interesting to contemplate the dating rituals in decades before. It seems to me that they were designed to give the woman the appearance that she was valuable and in demand.
> 
> For example, the "don't accept a date for Saturday when offered after Wednesday." I remember a friend of my brother's told me that he invited a girl from a church for a date. After she spoke to her mother, she told him that she couldn't say yes for this weekend, but she could go out with him for next weekend. He had to explain to me that he had asked her out too late in the week. And this was the '70s.
> 
> So I can see where some people might assume that a woman is desperate if she offers to pay / to provide her own transportation and so on.


Lol.I once asked the receptionist of a law firm out to dinner.This girl was beautiful,sexily dressed,and a real flirty manner.She told me she would have to ask her mother! I really thought she was just turning me down but right then she rang her mother and asked her was it ok.Her mother asked to talk to me and asked me where I wanted to take her daughter.I named a restaurant in Manhattan and she said that was a suitable place for dinner.The weird thing as when I brought her home she lived on her own and it turned out her parents didn't even live in NY.She explained that she had hundreds of relatives in NY and if one of them told her mother that she was dating there would have been hell to pay.I didn't get laid either.☹


----------



## _anonymous_

Andy1001 said:


> I didn't get laid either.☹


I'm guessing her mother disapproved?


----------



## Andy1001

_anonymous_ said:


> I'm guessing her mother disapproved?


She really was beautiful though.sigh.


----------



## Real talk

_anonymous_ said:


> It seems like you're suggesting that your level of payment on a date should be based on your date's income, not trends across individuals? Realize that you don't know with certainty the earnings of your date, or that of most other women. It's private information. Given that uncertainty, I would argue that what people generally believe about men's pay vs. women's pay is somewhat relevant.


I think in most situations you can assess a person's career level and income group based on their age, how they carry themselves and where you meet them or through initial conversation, right? If you pick up a woman working at Starbucks that's one thing compared to if you met a woman at a finance convention or the CPA society meet and greet. If you're older and established and you pursue younger women who are new in their careers again that's one thing, you should probably pay. I think we can discern which women are more than capable of contributing to the mutual beneficial courting process if that's what you're going for. 



_anonymous_ said:


> All of this aside, I stand my ground with my change of mind over who should pay on dates. On average, for the best outcome, the guy should pay. I'm hard pressed to believe that any one dude in the developed world who stops paying for his dates is going to start any kind of revolution for the whole of men. Guys should maximize their payoff on an individual level by paying.


You know what I've learned to respect women for their ability to collectively set standards and as a group commit. They know the expectation of full financial contribution is nothing more than unilateral compensation but it's something the majority refuse to disassociate with. They can do this because men are encouraged to think individually since they're in competition with each other over what's perceived as the same resource. Men would rather be disadvantaged and maintain a perception of superiority to other men than be emancipated and empathize as a brotherhood. 

Maximizing your payoff I would say is contingent on what you value as a man. If the payoff is a statistically low probability of connecting emotionally to a woman after being strung along literally and figuratively putting up all the risk with no gauranteed payoff then sure. But to encourage a dating environment where men can set barriers and have fair expectations in society which has taken away all of their gender based balancing benefits, we need more brainpower than for the best outcome assumptions. That includes treating ourselves better and having others do the same.


----------



## NextTimeAround

@Andy1001

How did you feel, both consciously and subconciously about the date? Did you feel honored that you were "pre approved?"

Did you think about being on better behavior with her and than with other women?

Was it your decision not to see her again? If so, why?


----------



## Andy1001

NextTimeAround said:


> @Andy1001
> 
> How did you feel, both consciously and subconciously about the date? Did you feel honored that you were "pre approved?"
> 
> Did you think about being on better behavior with her and than with other women?
> 
> Was it your decision not to see her again? If so, why?


To be honest I thought it was hilarious that she would have to ask her mom could she go on a date.She was at least twenty four and had her own apt.I think her parents were probably paying for it though.She told some other colleagues we were going out and the next day one of the partners rang me and asked me how it went.I asked him why it interested him so much and he said almost every man in the building had asked her out but she had refused.I never mentioned her calling her mom and just said we had a good time.She told me she went home every weekend so couldn't date so we agreed it wasn't going anywhere.
As to behaviour,I had this little worry that Tony Soprano or one of his buddies was going to appear an inquire about my intentions towards his daughter.


----------



## uhtred

Part of this seems strange to me, but maybe its because I haven't dated since the late cretaceous. 

Whether or not anything else happens, a date with a nice woman is itself a fun thing to do and worth far more than the cost of dinner. If I paid the whole thing and we never got together again, it still would be a lot of enjoyment for the money spent.

If it went really horribly, then the loss of money wouldn't be a big deal in comparison to a miserable evening.


All this assumes that you are going somewhere appropriate to your income. I think taking a date somewhere you can't comfortably afford is never a good idea. Even if the date is successful, it sets up unrealistic expectations.


----------



## _anonymous_

Real talk said:


> I think in most situations you can assess a person's career level and income group based on their age, how they carry themselves and where you meet them or through initial conversation, right?


Not always. There's a lot of people who are young and dress like bums, but are highly educated and have good incomes. The way one carries themselves is perhaps a stronger indicator. What they say, how they act, etc. Even then it could be misleading. In university, I used to study with this woman who appeared to be super ditzy, but looks were really deceiving. She had a high GPA, and beyond school, has gone very far in her career. While I'm certain that being extremely attractive is not a disadvantage for her, she is undeniably smart, despite how she carries herself.



Real talk said:


> You know what I've learned to respect women for their ability to collectively set standards and as a group commit. They know the expectation of full financial contribution is nothing more than unilateral compensation but it's something the majority refuse to disassociate with. They can do this because men are encouraged to think individually since they're in competition with each other over what's perceived as the same resource. Men would rather be disadvantaged and maintain a perception of superiority to other men than be emancipated and empathize as a brotherhood.


A very interesting perspective. I don't think women collectively set any standards, but rather, these seem to be set through historical trends, media, news, etc. The "standards" are a stable social equilibrium, the gender behaviors to which we have settled into that won't change, as long as men believe they should be disadvantaged and they should compete. If we didn't pay a gal's way, someone else would, right? And that someone might get further than us in the dating game. And that's reason for worry, because beautiful women are a scarce resource! Believing these things, we pay. But if that's the way the system works and if the system is not subject to easily change, and additionally, if there are no limiting budget constraints, why wouldn't we pay? Given the system, the man is best off if he pays. 

I didn't like paying when I played the dating game, but likely if I paid more, on average I would've gotten further and the same applies for the typical guy. So guys, pay for your dates, if they'll allow it! And if you really want to pay your dues, get married. That's the ultimate unilateral compensation for any woman! 



Real talk said:


> But to encourage a dating environment where men can set barriers and have fair expectations in society which has taken away all of their gender based balancing benefits, we need more brainpower than for the best outcome assumptions. That includes treating ourselves better and having others do the same.


You know what, I think men and women should form gender unions. The more I think about this, men won't get fairness in dating unless we leverage collective bargaining to fight for our rights. Who's with me?! *crickets*


----------



## _anonymous_

uhtred said:


> Whether or not anything else happens, a date with a nice woman is itself a fun thing to do and worth far more than the cost of dinner.


Absolutely. The memory of a good date should be featured as "priceless" in a Mastercard commercial. I don't really remember the bad dates, even if I paid more than I wanted. But the good dates... those were some memories.


----------



## Andy1001

uhtred said:


> Part of this seems strange to me, but maybe its because I haven't dated since the late cretaceous.
> 
> Whether or not anything else happens, a date with a nice woman is itself a fun thing to do and worth far more than the cost of dinner. If I paid the whole thing and we never got together again, it still would be a lot of enjoyment for the money spent.
> 
> If it went really horribly, then the loss of money wouldn't be a big deal in comparison to a miserable evening.
> 
> 
> All this assumes that you are going somewhere appropriate to your income. I think taking a date somewhere you can't comfortably afford is never a good idea. Even if the date is successful, it sets up unrealistic expectations.


That was the only criteria I had about asking for a second date.Did I enjoy the first one and did we have a laugh.I don't care if a woman looks like Charlize Theron, if I feel after the date that I should have stayed home I won't ask for another.Sex didn't come into it.


----------



## Herschel

So here is my most recent situation. Dated a woman for almost a month. It got fairly intense quickly and seemed good going forward. Halfway in was her birthday and I got tickets to see Phantom in NYC. She wanted to see it and I never had. That was 2 weeks ago. She wigged out and we ended things. I told her the tickets were hers and she should being her daughter. She said she felt bad since I had paid for most of everything (very true) and the tickets weren't cheap. I said ok, I'll use them.

Now, the tickets were originally for us, and I did pay for 90% of everything and I did offer them to her after the split. Is that legit that I am keeping them and will use them next weekend?


----------



## _anonymous_

Herschel said:


> Now, the tickets were originally for us, and I did pay for 90% of everything and I did offer them to her after the split. Is that legit that I am keeping them and will use them next weekend?


I would think so; you should get over the guilt and enjoy the show! Phantom is great, especially in New York. Touring show is not as good.


----------



## Bananapeel

Herschel said:


> So here is my most recent situation. Dated a woman for almost a month. It got fairly intense quickly and seemed good going forward. Halfway in was her birthday and I got tickets to see Phantom in NYC. She wanted to see it and I never had. That was 2 weeks ago. She wigged out and we ended things. I told her the tickets were hers and she should being her daughter. She said she felt bad since I had paid for most of everything (very true) and the tickets weren't cheap. I said ok, I'll use them.
> 
> Now, the tickets were originally for us, and I did pay for 90% of everything and I did offer them to her after the split. Is that legit that I am keeping them and will use them next weekend?


You bought them and actually never gave them to her so they are yours to do with as you please. There shouldn't even be a question about this. You should enjoy the show and find a different woman to bring.


----------



## Herschel

Bananapeel said:


> You bought them and actually never gave them to her so they are yours to do with as you please. There shouldn't even be a question about this. You should enjoy the show and find a different woman to bring.


Au contraire, I did give them to her. I mean, I printed them out, so I made a copy after the fact. I told her to go and she said she wouldn't feel right. I think that's all she deserves from me, a one time, you can take them, oh, no, ok, I have a use for them (let me add, she wigged out and I was completely on-board).


----------



## Bananapeel

Agreed. Go enjoy the show!


----------



## Wolf1974

Tillaan said:


> This is a fascinating thread. I've been following it from the beginning and it's got me wondering. This seems like it could be a very interesting topic for one of those early dates as it covers so many aspects on relationships, equality, and expectations in one subject not to mention no one would see the topic coming and be prepared with answers. I'm curious if anyone else would agree you could potentially determine a lot about someone from how they responded to this subject.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I do agree and think it's important for both sides of the argument. If you want to have an equal partner but they want you pay for all dates that tells you all you need to know. If you want to be paid for and the other person wants you to contribute then also tells you all you need to know.

This really could be one of the very first conversations you have with someone that tells you much of what you need to know about how a long term relationship would be .


----------



## Tillaan

Herschel said:


> So here is my most recent situation. Dated a woman for almost a month. It got fairly intense quickly and seemed good going forward. Halfway in was her birthday and I got tickets to see Phantom in NYC. She wanted to see it and I never had. That was 2 weeks ago. She wigged out and we ended things. I told her the tickets were hers and she should being her daughter. She said she felt bad since I had paid for most of everything (very true) and the tickets weren't cheap. I said ok, I'll use them.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the tickets were originally for us, and I did pay for 90% of everything and I did offer them to her after the split. Is that legit that I am keeping them and will use them next weekend?



Go enjoy myself, maybe take a different date. You offered, she declined, nothing to worry about. 

If you feel bad about that consider sending her her share of the cost back simply for your peace of mind but I personally wouldn't do that on the basis you would not have made this purchase if not for her. You have no moral obligation to do anything more than you already have. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Herschel

Tillaan said:


> Go enjoy myself, maybe take a different date. You offered, she declined, nothing to worry about.
> 
> If you feel bad about that consider sending her her share of the cost back simply for your peace of mind but I personally wouldn't do that on the basis you would not have made this purchase if not for her. You have no moral obligation to do anything more than you already have.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm taking my 73 year old aunt that came into town from Cali. I don't think I can get anything from her, but hopefully she will pay for dinner.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Wolf1974 said:


> I do agree and think it's important for both sides of the argument. If you want to have an equal partner but they want you pay for all dates that tells you all you need to know. If you want to be paid for and the other person wants you to contribute then also tells you all you need to know.
> 
> *This really could be one of the very first conversations you have with someone that tells you much of what you need to know about how a long term relationship would be *.


I doubt you could learn the truth of the matter in a direct conversation.

For example, at the 4 month mark with my future husband and just 2 weeks after he had come back from a trip with his so called friend, he asked me how much money I made. As I sat slack jawed, he double downed with "I'm asking because I'm used to women paying for me." 

That assertion was not even remotely true I later learned. His friend had put him up to asking me that question. She had told him how much money she made and she wanted to compare herself (favorably) to me as she already had agewise (she was younger); healthwise (I have cancer and despite her other health problems, she doesn't) and so on.......

I have in the past noticed when guys talk with bravado about how much they spent on the last one. Of course, when you want to revisit that conversation, they can't remember it.


----------



## Tillaan

NextTimeAround said:


> I doubt you could learn the truth of the matter in a direct conversation.



I wish this weren't the truth of people but sadly you are correct you cannot seem to learn the truth of anything based on what people say. I'm generally an exception to that rule because I don't bother to filter what I say when asked a straight question, unless I'm already expecting a conversation to be adversarial or it's something I am not open about. There is not much I'm not open about. 

I really do enjoy listening to people answer questions they weren't expecting to be asked and likely didn't have a previously thought out answer prepared. Will the answer be true? Probably not. Will it be interesting to see how they handle the response and work through the topic at hand? Most definitely. Would be much nicer if you could trust what they said though, but even if you can't it would still be conversation you could learn a lot from.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

Agreed!
Its so strange that people spend so much time with people who make them unhappy. 




Andy1001 said:


> That was the only criteria I had about asking for a second date.Did I enjoy the first one and did we have a laugh.I don't care if a woman looks like Charlize Theron, if I feel after the date that I should have stayed home I won't ask for another.Sex didn't come into it.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Tillaan said:


> I wish this weren't the truth of people but sadly you are correct you cannot seem to learn the truth of anything based on what people say. I'm generally an exception to that rule because I don't bother to filter what I say when asked a straight question, unless I'm already expecting a conversation to be adversarial or it's something I am not open about. There is not much I'm not open about.
> 
> I really do enjoy listening to people answer questions they weren't expecting to be asked and likely didn't have a previously thought out answer prepared. Will the answer be true? Probably not. Will it be interesting to see how they handle the response and work through the topic at hand? Most definitely. Would be much nicer if you could trust what they said though, but even if you can't it would still be conversation you could learn a lot from.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


With people who have good boundaries, you are probably less likely to get answers to inappropriate questions. How much do you make when you're not exclusive and it's obvious that there's another woman in the background is not a good time to ask the person you're dating.

Questions that are less universally inappropriate are best asked intermittently and out of nowhere. 2 years post his dumping his so called friend, I was piecing together info from the messaging, e-mailing and credit card statements that he allowed to float around his apartment. So out of nowhere, I asked my future husband "did your friend advise you to make me pay for stuff." And he without hesitation answered "yes." 

given the fact that I saw the text exchange in which she told him to ask me how long I had been divorced and went on to say "you're crazy for not asking".......... and he said those exact things in the same conversation in which he asked me how much money I was making ....... well, bingo, he was fishing for her. (just an aside, men who think female friends are great need to do an audit periodically..... I helped my future husband with his audit :smthumbup

I find that you can also get more info when you ask questions intermittently......... that is, in several conversations. The person is less likely to see the pattern, where you are going with your line of questioning and will tell the truth.


----------



## Wolf1974

NextTimeAround said:


> I doubt you could learn the truth of the matter in a direct conversation.
> 
> For example, at the 4 month mark with my future husband and just 2 weeks after he had come back from a trip with his so called friend, he asked me how much money I made. As I sat slack jawed, he double downed with "I'm asking because I'm used to women paying for me."
> 
> That assertion was not even remotely true I later learned. His friend had put him up to asking me that question. She had told him how much money she made and she wanted to compare herself (favorably) to me as she already had agewise (she was younger); healthwise (I have cancer and despite her other health problems, she doesn't) and so on.......
> 
> I have in the past noticed when guys talk with bravado about how much they spent on the last one. Of course, when you want to revisit that conversation, they can't remember it.


I would disagree. From what I have seen posted here seems that the attitude about how dating should go translates from the opening few lines. I think you learn a lot from a person early on we just don't tend to listen well.


----------



## Satya

Herschel said:


> So here is my most recent situation. Dated a woman for almost a month. It got fairly intense quickly and seemed good going forward. Halfway in was her birthday and I got tickets to see Phantom in NYC. She wanted to see it and I never had. That was 2 weeks ago. She wigged out and we ended things. I told her the tickets were hers and she should being her daughter. She said she felt bad since I had paid for most of everything (very true) and the tickets weren't cheap. I said ok, I'll use them.
> 
> Now, the tickets were originally for us, and I did pay for 90% of everything and I did offer them to her after the split. Is that legit that I am keeping them and will use them next weekend?


Yes.


----------



## Andy1001

NextTimeAround said:


> With people who have good boundaries, you are probably less likely to get answers to inappropriate questions. How much do you make when you're not exclusive and it's obvious that there's another woman in the background is not a good time to ask the person you're dating.
> 
> Questions that are less universally inappropriate are best asked intermittently and out of nowhere. 2 years post his dumping his so called friend, I was piecing together info from the messaging, e-mailing and credit card statements that he allowed to float around his apartment. So out of nowhere, I asked my future husband "did your friend advise you to make me pay for stuff." And he without hesitation answered "yes."
> 
> given the fact that I saw the text exchange in which she told him to ask me how long I had been divorced and went on to say "you're crazy for not asking".......... and he said those exact things in the same conversation in which he asked me how much money I was making ....... well, bingo, he was fishing for her. (just an aside, men who think female friends are great need to do an audit periodically..... I helped my future husband with his audit :smthumbup
> 
> I find that you can also get more info when you ask questions intermittently......... that is, in several conversations. The person is less likely to see the pattern, where you are going with your line of questioning and will tell the truth.


I hope that audit meant kicking her scheming manipulative ass out Of you're lives completely.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Andy1001 said:


> I hope that audit meant kicking her scheming manipulative ass out Of you're lives completely.


of course, that's why we're together now ...... and happily so. 

From that experience, I finally crystallized the wisdom, " as a wife, partner, exclusive girlfriend, no man is ever going to treat some other woman better than he treats me."

This opposite sex friends stuff is crazy.


----------



## Andy1001

NextTimeAround said:


> With people who have good boundaries, you are probably less likely to get answers to inappropriate questions. How much do you make when you're not exclusive and it's obvious that there's another woman in the background is not a good time to ask the person you're dating.
> 
> Questions that are less universally inappropriate are best asked intermittently and out of nowhere. 2 years post his dumping his so called friend, I was piecing together info from the messaging, e-mailing and credit card statements that he allowed to float around his apartment. So out of nowhere, I asked my future husband "did your friend advise you to make me pay for stuff." And he without hesitation answered "yes."
> 
> given the fact that I saw the text exchange in which she told him to ask me how long I had been divorced and went on to say "you're crazy for not asking".......... and he said those exact things in the same conversation in which he asked me how much money I was making ....... well, bingo, he was fishing for her. (just an aside, men who think female friends are great need to do an audit periodically..... I helped my future husband with his audit :smthumbup
> 
> I find that you can also get more info when you ask questions intermittently......... that is, in several conversations. The person is less likely to see the pattern, where you are going with your line of questioning and will tell the truth.


One night when my gf and I and one of her friends and her boyfriend went on a double date the subject of earnings came up.Now I liked to keep my finances to myself but this girl was getting on my nerves.She asked me straight out how much I earned and I told her a figure that I picked out of the sky.She smiled and said her boyfriends annual salary was more than that.I looked at her and said "sorry,I thought you meant weekly salary".
Crickets.


----------



## Andy1001

NextTimeAround said:


> of course, that's why we're together now ...... and happily so.
> 
> From that experience, I finally crystallized the wisdom, " as a wife, partner, exclusive girlfriend, no man is ever going to treat some other woman better than he treats me."
> 
> This opposite sex friends stuff is crazy.


In regards to opposite sex friends my best friend is a woman who I lived with for years and even now she lives less than five minutes away.
But she is gay so my gf has no problems with our friendship and in fact they are very close friends as well.But in regards to your point about friends of the opposite sex,if one partner is uncomfortable then the friendship has to take a back seat.
By the way I hope you are ok health wise by now.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Andy1001 said:


> In regards to opposite sex friends my best friend is a woman who I lived with for years and even now she lives less than five minutes away.
> But she is gay the fact that she is a lesbian does not completely wipe away any possible problems. Some people are into one upmanship, ie can she get you to change your schedule for little 'ole her? Does she try to remind your girlfriend that she knows you better than she does and so on..... also, could she somehow be bisexual...... so my gf has no problems with our friendship and in fact they are very close friends as well.That's good. But in regards to your point about friends of the opposite sex,if one partner is uncomfortable then the friendship has to take a back seat.
> By the way I hope you are ok health wise by now. yes, thanks. It's in remission.


----------



## Andy1001

Ally(my friend) is as gay as they come.I traveled the world with her and slept in the same bed on numerous occasions,we have never had any sexual intimacy,not even spooning.She is a beautiful, funny,smart girl with the biggest heart in the world. She has kissed me twice in her life,when I got engaged and when my daughter was born.
As far as one upmanship is concerned,it's the two of them trying to get one over on me most of the time.lol.But I do take your point and I make sure it never happens.


----------



## Real talk

uhtred said:


> Part of this seems strange to me, but maybe its because I haven't dated since the late cretaceous.
> 
> Whether or not anything else happens, a date with a nice woman is itself a fun thing to do and worth far more than the cost of dinner. If I paid the whole thing and we never got together again, it still would be a lot of enjoyment for the money spent.
> 
> If it went really horribly, then the loss of money wouldn't be a big deal in comparison to a miserable evening.
> 
> 
> All this assumes that you are going somewhere appropriate to your income. I think taking a date somewhere you can't comfortably afford is never a good idea. Even if the date is successful, it sets up unrealistic expectations.


This so so simpish to me. You know what's better than a fun date with a nice woman, a fund date with a nice women you didn't fully pay for yourself. A fun date with a nice woman who values your time as much as you value hers is the best. 

It's funny seeing people talk about how insignificant costs of dates are only for it to such a hard expectation to expect from a woman.


----------



## Real talk

_anonymous_ said:


> Not always. There's a lot of people who are young and dress like bums, but are highly educated and have good incomes. The way one carries themselves is perhaps a stronger indicator. What they say, how they act, etc. Even then it could be misleading. In university, I used to study with this woman who appeared to be super ditzy, but looks were really deceiving. She had a high GPA, and beyond school, has gone very far in her career. While I'm certain that being extremely attractive is not a disadvantage for her, she is undeniably smart, despite how she carries herself.


I think you're doing incredible mental gymnastics in order to support your position. There are plenty of "ditzy" people who are working professionals. That has nothing to do with economics at all. 90%+ of people marry within their income levels for a reason, it's not a coincidence. People generally date within their own proximity and it's not rocket science to comprehend. One of the first questions people ask when they're dating is "what do you do for a living". Anything other than "I'm on welfare" means she's able to support herself including dates. If not she shouldn't be dating.



_anonymous_ said:


> A very interesting perspective. I don't think women collectively set any standards, but rather, these seem to be set through historical trends, media, news, etc.


Those are the exact same things that have set standards pre-feminism and they worked very hard to change them. So to excuse them not changing the ones that benefit them as historical is lazy and self defeating. Women collectively set the standard by not collectively easing up on it the way they do things like the expectation of chastity for example. 



_anonymous_ said:


> But if that's the way the system works and if the system is not subject to easily change, and additionally, if there are no limiting budget constraints, why wouldn't we pay?
> 
> Because those resources can go toward ourselves, the same reason why women won't pay. I remember a guy on another forum said that when he was dating he looked up and realized he spent over 20k on dating various women and social simping. You realize the things he could have done with that money? The savings he'd have after compounding interest? Women avoid paying so they could reinvest the money for entertaining for themselves. What would you rather do, save thousands over a lifetime not giving money to women you get nothing out of or sacrifice money due to poor self realization and insecurity of your manhood?
> 
> 
> 
> _anonymous_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women clearly collectively set the standard because if they didn't then all of the standards that have changed due to feminism wouldn't have happened. I didn't like paying when I played the dating game, but likely if I paid more, on average I would've gotten further and the same applies for the typical guy. So guys, pay for your dates, if they'll allow it! And if you really want to pay your dues, get married. That's the ultimate unilateral compensation for any woman!
> 
> 
> 
> This makes you sound very female-identified i'm afraid. If marriage was unilateral then all these men wouldn't be ruining sacrificing their health and wealth on their families risking the possibility of losing it all as soon as she gets bored.
Click to expand...


----------



## Andy1001

Real talk said:


> I think you're doing incredible mental gymnastics in order to support your position. There are plenty of "ditzy" people who are working professionals. That has nothing to do with economics at all. 90%+ of people marry within their income levels for a reason, it's not a coincidence. People generally date within their own proximity and it's not rocket science to comprehend. One of the first questions people ask when they're dating is "what do you do for a living". Anything other than "I'm on welfare" means she's able to support herself including dates. If not she shouldn't be dating.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the exact same things that have set standards pre-feminism and they worked very hard to change them. So to excuse them not changing the ones that benefit them as historical is lazy and self defeating. Women collectively set the standard by not collectively easing up on it the way they do things like the expectation of chastity for example.
> 
> 
> 
> _anonymous_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if that's the way the system works and if the system is not subject to easily change, and additionally, if there are no limiting budget constraints, why wouldn't we pay?
> 
> Because those resources can go toward ourselves, the same reason why women won't pay. I remember a guy on another forum said that when he was dating he looked up and realized he spent over 20k on dating various women and social simping. You realize the things he could have done with that money? The savings he'd have after compounding interest? Women avoid paying so they could reinvest the money for entertaining for themselves. What would you rather do, save thousands over a lifetime not giving money to women you get nothing out of or sacrifice money due to poor self realization and insecurity of your manhood?
> 
> 
> 
> This makes you sound very female-identified i'm afraid. If marriage was unilateral then all these men wouldn't be ruining sacrificing their health and wealth on their families risking the possibility of losing it all as soon as she gets bored.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## _anonymous_

Andy1001 said:


> You make dating sound more like a prison sentence than a fun activity.I always looked on dating like this.Getting ready for a date I showered,shaved and got dressed in whatever was suitable for the date.Maybe a suit,maybe a casual jacket and trousers or maybe jeans and a shirt or tshirt.That was all the preparation needed.My dates would have selected their outfit,spent hours on hair,makeup,nails etc depending on what we were doing.The least I could do was pay for the date.


Easy there, partner! You're responding to Real Talk's comments, not mine.


----------



## Andy1001

_anonymous_ said:


> Easy there, partner! You're responding to Real Talk's comments, not mine.


I don't know what happened,I pressed the quote button under his post.I have removed it.My apologies.


----------



## uhtred

I think the key is to only take someone on dates you can easily afford. So if they are looking for someone wealthier than you, they can do so - they will eventually figure out how much money you have anyway.

If that means inviting them to get take-out sandwiches, and eat them in the local waterfront park, then that's fine. They may find it a fun unique thing. If not and they want to be impressed with your money, then you are better off with someone else. 

if the place is inexpensive enough relative to your income, it doesn't matter who pays. You offer. If they accept, then great. If they offer to split, then great. 





Real talk said:


> This so so simpish to me. You know what's better than a fun date with a nice woman, a fund date with a nice women you didn't fully pay for yourself. A fun date with a nice woman who values your time as much as you value hers is the best.
> 
> It's funny seeing people talk about how insignificant costs of dates are only for it to such a hard expectation to expect from a woman.


----------



## _anonymous_

Real talk said:


> I think you're doing incredible mental gymnastics in order to support your position. There are plenty of "ditzy" people who are working professionals. That has nothing to do with economics at all. 90%+ of people marry within their income levels for a reason, it's not a coincidence. People generally date within their own proximity and it's not rocket science to comprehend. One of the first questions people ask when they're dating is "what do you do for a living". Anything other than "I'm on welfare" means she's able to support herself including dates. If not she shouldn't be dating.


I politely disagree. Ditzy or not, well-dressed or not, it's hard to ascertain a woman's salary (or that of a man's), on first encounters. Looks and how one carries themselves are positively correlated with education and income, but correlation is not always causation.

Moreover, just because a woman works a white-collar job, it doesn't mean she should can afford to dine at the man's favorite steakhouse, which he might recommend on their date. Two professionals can have vastly different salaries, and as a result, vastly different amounts of disposable income and abilities to pay. 

Not sure what "dating within their own proximity means" in your post. I've certainly never dated at work, or dated women strictly based on their future earning potential compared to my own. I tried to focus on the matching problem, whether I was compatible with the woman across the table and if we enjoyed each other's company.


----------



## Chuck71

*bump*

:rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

I am witnessing something of an intergenerational crossroads regarding this topic. 

I am old enough to have dated during a time when it was still pretty much universally assumed the man had the responsibility to pay for dates. i could not imagine any other model, even though I started off rather poor and could rarely spring for a classy date.

My first two children, now grown adults on their own were daughters. My one remaining at home is a boy approaching his 18th birthday. His girlfriend often pays for their shared activities. My instinctual reaction is to tell him to straighten up, be a man, and provide! But then I think, in this age of equality, the financial burden should be shared. 

Making the situation more interesting is the income gap. We're quite well off and my son has had opportunities to earn enough money to pay for their dates. However her family is _really _well off; bona fide top 1%ers and she seems to have quite an allowance. 

It's all so different from my experience, I feel quite unfit to advise. Sometimes you gotta' let your kids manage their own lives because that's a part of letting helping them grow into competent adults; other times you let them manage themselves because you have no idea how it should be managed in the first place :scratchhead:


----------



## Wolf1974

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I am witnessing something of an intergenerational crossroads regarding this topic.
> 
> I am old enough to have dated during a time when it was still pretty much universally assumed the man had the responsibility to pay for dates. i could not imagine any other model, even though I started off rather poor and could rarely spring for a classy date.
> 
> My first two children, now grown adults on their own were daughters. My one remaining at home is a boy approaching his 18th birthday. His girlfriend often pays for their shared activities. My instinctual reaction is to tell him to straighten up, be a man, and provide! But then I think, in this age of equality, the financial burden should be shared.
> 
> Making the situation more interesting is the income gap. We're quite well off and my son has had opportunities to earn enough money to pay for their dates. However her family is _really _well off; bona fide top 1%ers and she seems to have quite an allowance.
> 
> It's all so different from my experience, I feel quite unfit to advise. Sometimes you gotta' let your kids manage their own lives because that's a part of letting helping them grow into competent adults; other times you let them manage themselves because you have no idea how it should be managed in the first place :scratchhead:


Dating has definitely changed. I am old enough to have experienced both the man pays and the shared experience. Times change and I like the equality version more personally.


----------



## BradWesley2

After reading most of the posts on this thread, it's quite apparent why many of the guys on TAM aren't getting laid, and it has very little to do with taking a woman out, buying tickets to a show and treating her to a great dinner.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Wolf1974 said:


> Dating has definitely changed. I am old enough to have experienced both the man pays and the shared experience. Times change and I like the equality version more personally.


It does not seem to have changed that much IMO. Men will accept your money but then not think highly of you.

That's not what I call change.


----------



## Andy1001

NextTimeAround said:


> It does not seem to have changed that much IMO. Men will accept your money but then not think highly of you.
> 
> That's not what I call change.


It seems that men are more mercenary these days when it comes to dating.They want the best outcome for the least outlay.This hangout culture plays into their hands,they can spend the evening with their girlfriends without spending anything on them.Then except sex at the end of the night.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Andy1001 said:


> It seems that men are more mercenary these days when it comes to dating.They want the best outcome for the least outlay.This hangout culture plays into their hands,they can spend the evening with their girlfriends without spending anything on them.Then except sex at the end of the night.


i have never gotten the feeling that a guy felt entitled to have sex with me because he bought me dinner. in fact, it's the guy that I spent time with who didn't pay for anything who might have felt entitled.

so let's get back to who paid and what was the sentiment, perceived and real, thereafter......

When my husband and I were dating and he still had unfinished business, he was happy to pay for his just a friend ex. But I don't get the feeling that they were still having sex, in fact, he told me that she told him that the new guy was better in bed and had a bigger ****. 

I'm just trying to figure out the kind of validation that my husband was getting out of that relationship. a sense of belonging / a sense of being young again since she's 11 years younger and some her friends even younger / perhaps some of you men can suggest other non sex sources of validation that a man can get.


----------



## Andy1001

NextTimeAround said:


> i have never gotten the feeling that a guy felt entitled to have sex with me because he bought me dinner. in fact, it's the guy that I spent time with who didn't pay for anything who might have felt entitled.
> 
> so let's get back to who paid and what was the sentiment, perceived and real, thereafter......
> 
> When my husband and I were dating and he still had unfinished business, he was happy to pay for his just a friend ex. But I don't get the feeling that they were still having sex, in fact, he told me that she told him that the new guy was better in bed and had a bigger ****.
> 
> I'm just trying to figure out the kind of validation that my husband was getting out of that relationship. a sense of belonging / a sense of being young again since she's 11 years younger and some her friends even younger / perhaps some of you men can suggest other non sex sources of validation that a man can get.


This "friend"of your husbands seems like a real piece of work.This is the woman who told him to find out how much you earned and to make sure you paid on dates.And he was spending money on her and not with you.
There is no mystery about why he stayed friends with her even when she emasculated him.
She was hot,really hot.
Arm candy.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Andy1001 said:


> This "friend"of your husbands seems like a real piece of work.This is the woman who told him to find out how much you earned and to make sure you paid on dates.And he was spending money on her and not with you.
> There is no mystery about why he stayed friends with her even when she emasculated him.
> She was hot,really hot.
> Arm candy.


I've seen pictures of her. She was overweight (her FB public photos show a slimmed down version 5+ years on), self described as 50 pounds overweight. My husband told me he didn't her all that attractive, but I guess he would say that now wouldn't he.

I think this is one of those cases in which personality (ie in your face) and certain circumstances a) she provided him a ready made social life before he and I met and b) they had a shared interest (indie bands). 

I like looking at that situation even several years on for a couple of reasons:

1. having access to their messaging there some things that I know for a fact so less speculation about things

2. I don't think that this inappropriate friendship is not that uncommon, so a case study for others.


----------



## Andy1001

NextTimeAround said:


> I've seen pictures of her. She was overweight (her FB public photos show a slimmed down version 5+ years on), self described as 50 pounds overweight. My husband told me he didn't her all that attractive, but I guess he would say that now wouldn't he.
> 
> I think this is one of those cases in which personality (ie in your face) and certain circumstances a) she provided him a ready made social life before he and I met and b) they had a shared interest (indie bands).
> 
> I like looking at that situation even several years on for a couple of reasons:
> 
> 1. having access to their messaging there some things that I know for a fact so less speculation about things
> 
> 2. I don't think that this inappropriate friendship is not that uncommon, so a case study for others.


It must be a case of hypnotism so.lol.Has he ever explained to you why he felt he had to do as she told him.Her telling him to find out about your earnings and health sounds creepy.Girlfriends friends finding out about my earnings is something that I know all about,it eventually caused me to call of the wedding.


----------



## brooklynAnn

Don't leave me hanging. ... what are the reasons?


----------



## NextTimeAround

Andy1001 said:


> It must be a case of hypnotism so.lol. or as they say around here, "it's the fog." We need to remember that just about anyone can succumb to it.
> 
> Has he ever explained to you why he felt he had to do as she told him. Her telling him to find out about your earnings and health sounds creepy.Girlfriends friends finding out about my earnings is something that I know all about,it eventually caused me to call of the wedding.


I get the feeling that he was trying to make her jealous now that he was dating someone else. I think he mentioned the state of my health to her. But I saw the text in which she discussed with him her health issues. And then a quick text after that of "at least it's not cancer."

I guess if someone does not get disgusted after that then there is whole lot more territory that one can plough. so maybe she decided that if she made direct comparisons of herself to me in a favorable light whatever the facts were, that would put her at an advantage ..... should she ever decide that she wanted to date him again.

I saw the text where she told him he should know how long I have divorced. Ok, that's a legit concern. I think she introduced the idea of asking about my income as "friendly" advice ie "she may be making a lot of money. You don't want her using you for your money." 

And because she got a boyfriend during this time, he saw her less and saw me more. 

I think some people get mixed up on what they value. We started to see each other regularly. Does that mean that time we spend together is worth less than the time he would see her ( which I later found out were a couple of evenings out that he didn't tell me about).

It's easy to say / think: "because I don't see this person as often, I have to work harder at making it worth their while to see me." Even a female friend fell into that trap when I was discussing this with her. "well, you see him more often than she does." Um, yeah, and I can see him less often and date other men in the meantime like she does. This was in fact exactly the way I finally put it to him.


----------



## Wolf1974

NextTimeAround said:


> It does not seem to have changed that much IMO. Men will accept your money but then not think highly of you.
> 
> That's not what I call change.


That's your experience only. I am a man and I only respect and think highly of women who want to contribute to OUR relationship. Those who want a free ride not so much.


----------



## frusdil

Wolf1974 said:


> That's your experience only. I am a man and I only respect and think highly of women who want to contribute to OUR relationship. Those who want a free ride not so much.


So I'm not contributing to my marriage at all? I didn't contribute to my dating relationship at all? My husband paid on all our dates, except the first one, lol. I only paid twice - I paid half on our first date, after he asked me to (and I was very put off by being asked) and when I sold one of my cars I took him out for dinner and insisted on paying - and then joked afterwards that he had to have sex with me because I bought him dinner, bahahahaha.


----------



## frusdil

.


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

I've heard of women who only 'date' to get free dinners and I honestly can't imagine doing that.

Basically, that would entail making sure I'm dressed nicely and my hair and makeup are perfect, going to the restaurant and spending two or three hours making grueling 'small talk' with a stranger and pretending to be interested in him when I'm really not, and all so I can 'score' that coveted $16.99 chicken Parmesan dinner on *his* dime.

Who the hell DOES that?

I'd rather sit home in my sweats eating Hamburger Helper for dinner and watching Judge Judy. I'm dead serious. That's just WAY too much work for a free dinner.


----------



## Andy1001

She'sStillGotIt said:


> I've heard of women who only 'date' to get free dinners and I honestly can't imagine doing that.
> 
> Basically, that would entail making sure I'm dressed nicely and my hair and makeup are perfect, going to the restaurant and spending two or three hours making grueling 'small talk' with a stranger and pretending to be interested in him when I'm really not, and all so I can 'score' that coveted $16.99 chicken Parmesan dinner on *his* dime.
> 
> Who the hell DOES that?
> 
> I'd rather sit home in my sweats eating Hamburger Helper for dinner and watching Judge Judy. I'm dead serious. That's just WAY too much work for a free dinner.


I was agreeing with you up until you mentioned judge Judy.What a pain in the ass that woman is.I have only watched the programme a few times but she has her mind made up within seconds and is so biased to her "favourite" that they may as well run the closing credits two minutes after the start.


----------



## _anonymous_

She'sStillGotIt said:


> I've heard of women who only 'date' to get free dinners. Who the hell DOES that?


Some women, who can't afford to eat out, or like eating out more often than their budget allows. That's who.

Also, I could see some women without a tight budget doing this. Surely, of the subset of women who serially date for free lunch, some do it "because they can". It's more of a power trip.


----------



## frusdil

She'sStillGotIt said:


> I've heard of women who only 'date' to get free dinners and I honestly can't imagine doing that.
> 
> Basically, that would entail making sure I'm dressed nicely and my hair and makeup are perfect, going to the restaurant and spending two or three hours making grueling 'small talk' with a stranger and pretending to be interested in him when I'm really not, and all so I can 'score' that coveted $16.99 chicken Parmesan dinner on *his* dime.
> 
> Who the hell DOES that?
> 
> I'd rather sit home in my sweats eating Hamburger Helper for dinner and watching Judge Judy. I'm dead serious. That's just WAY too much work for a free dinner.


Ditto. And maybe Dr Phil


----------



## Wolf1974

frusdil said:


> So I'm not contributing to my marriage at all? I didn't contribute to my dating relationship at all? My husband paid on all our dates, except the first one, lol. I only paid twice - I paid half on our first date, after he asked me to (and I was very put off by being asked) and when I sold one of my cars I took him out for dinner and insisted on paying - and then joked afterwards that he had to have sex with me because I bought him dinner, bahahahaha.


I'm not sure why you're asking me those questions I'm not married to you and didn't date you so I don't know if or what you contributed lol

That's really a question for him to decide I suppose but we are talking about financially contribute. People can contribute more than financial earnings if they are a stay at home mom for example.


----------



## Wolf1974

She'sStillGotIt said:


> I've heard of women who only 'date' to get free dinners and I honestly can't imagine doing that.
> 
> Basically, that would entail making sure I'm dressed nicely and my hair and makeup are perfect, going to the restaurant and spending two or three hours making grueling 'small talk' with a stranger and pretending to be interested in him when I'm really not, and all so I can 'score' that coveted $16.99 chicken Parmesan dinner on *his* dime.
> 
> *Who the hell DOES that*?
> 
> I'd rather sit home in my sweats eating Hamburger Helper for dinner and watching Judge Judy. I'm dead serious. That's just WAY too much work for a free dinner.


I think it's more about game playing than just simply eating for free. My GF has talked about women she knew who did things like this in an effort to see what they could get. Similar lines to guys trying to do x y and z to just talk a girl into bed.

Seems it's just game playing


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> People can contribute more than financial earnings if they are a stay at home mom for example.


This is definitely how my husband sees it.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Wolf1974 said:


> I think it's more about game playing than just simply eating for free. My GF has talked about women she knew who did things like this in an effort to see what they could get. Similar lines to guys trying to do x y and z to just talk a girl into bed.
> 
> Seems it's just game playing


during the first year of our dating when my husband still had his "friend" on FB and they communicated from time to time, her boyfriend sent him a PM the day of her birthday party around 1pm inviting him to her b-day party.

We had gone to the beach that day. But also, fortunately, he and I had already had the talk. At 11pm that night (pubs still close at 11pm in London), he showed that she texted him with the brief message: "Why didn't you come?"

All I can think is that since it was closing time at the pub, she was looking for someone to pay /to help pay the bar tab.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> This is definitely how my husband sees it.


I was in Orlando doing some work about eight years ago and I was driving around early on Sunday morning when I drove up to a coffee shop in a shopping mall that was just opening.There was another girl standing there and as soon as she seen me she called me by a nickname I hadnt been called in years.It turned out she was a friend of my nieces from when I lived with my brother in the UK years previously.She invited me to dinner at her hotel and told me it was a jacket and tie sort of place which for Orlando was unheard of.The restaurant was called Victoria and Alberts and it is still the most expensive place I have ever eaten.Tiny portions of food,elaborately served,matching wine for each course,personalised menus.The bill was almost eight hundred dollars which she insisted on paying and I had to ask for a sandwich at the bar afterwards because I was still hungry.The funny thing is I was invited by the client,who was a women,a few days later to the same restaurant and I got some funny looks from the waiter and waitress who were the same pair from the previous night.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> I was in Orlando doing some work about eight years ago and I was driving around early on Sunday morning when I drove up to a coffee shop in a shopping mall that was just opening.There was another girl standing there and as soon as she seen me she called me by a nickname I hadnt been called in years.It turned out she was a friend of my nieces from when I lived with my brother in the UK years previously.She invited me to dinner at her hotel and told me it was a jacket and tie sort of place which for Orlando was unheard of.The restaurant was called Victoria and Alberts and it is still the most expensive place I have ever eaten.Tiny portions of food,elaborately served,matching wine for each course,personalised menus.The bill was almost eight hundred dollars which she insisted on paying and I had to ask for a sandwich at the bar afterwards because I was still hungry.The funny thing is I was invited by the client,who was a women,a few days later to the same restaurant and I got some funny looks from the waiter and waitress who were the same pair from the previous night.


Andy, did you mean to reply to someone else?


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> Andy, did you mean to reply to someone else?


Yes,sorry about that,wrong thread.


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> This is definitely how my husband sees it.


As well he should. I think stay at home parenting, if you're actually good at it and running the household, is invaluable especially when kids are young. I know at one point I asked my x wife to transition to this but ultimately she felt work was more important. 

However for me now dating again this is no longer an issue. I can't have more kids and my kids are old enough to not need round the clock care. My household as a result is very easy to maintain. So any woman now who wanted to ultimately marry and be a stay at home mom would be a no go for me. 20 years ago yes but that time has come and gone. I don't need someone to run or maintain my household I need someone to contribute as much as I do to my household, equally, and that would now include financially.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> As well he should. I think stay at home parenting, if you're actually good at it and running the household, is invaluable especially when kids are young. I know at one point I asked my x wife to transition to this but ultimately she felt work was more important.
> 
> However for me now dating again this is no longer an issue. I can't have more kids and my kids are old enough to not need round the clock care. My household as a result is very easy to maintain. So any woman now who wanted to ultimately marry and be a stay at home mom would be a no go for me. 20 years ago yes but that time has come and gone. I don't need someone to run or maintain my household I need someone to contribute as much as I do to my household, equally, and that would now include financially.


It has certainly freed my husband up to do work he loves.

I am so grateful for the vision he had 24 years ago. I don't think I would have ever come up with it myself. But I am so happy he did.


----------



## Wolf1974

NextTimeAround said:


> during the first year of our dating when my husband still had his "friend" on FB and they communicated from time to time, her boyfriend sent him a PM the day of her birthday party around 1pm inviting him to her b-day party.
> 
> We had gone to the beach that day. But also, fortunately, he and I had already had the talk. At 11pm that night (pubs still close at 11pm in London), he showed that she texted him with the brief message: "Why didn't you come?"
> 
> All I can think is that since it was closing time at the pub, she was looking for someone to pay /to help pay the bar tab.


Probably right. I know the few women my GF referenced their game was to see which guys could take them to the most expensive restaurant. As I understand it this was a competition to them


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> It has certainly freed my husband up to do work he loves.
> 
> I am so grateful for the vision he had 24 years ago. I don't think I would have ever come up with it myself. But I am so happy he did.


Until what age did you educate your kids at home and what are your plans for when your youngest goes to college,will you go back teaching.


----------



## Andy1001

Wolf1974 said:


> Probably right. I know the few women my GF referenced their game was to see which guys could take them to the most expensive restaurant. As I understand it this was a competition to them


When I lived in NY it wasn't the restaurant that was important it was which nightclub you could get into.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> Until what age did you educate your kids at home and what are your plans for when your youngest goes to college,will you go back teaching.


I still have 3 at home. Youngest is 8.

All homeschooling until college, like their older brother and sister before them.

No real plans after we send youngest to college. Probably just enjoying time with my husband and helping the older kids' families any way I can.

Again, @Duguesclin, so grateful to you for all of this. Eternal thanks.❤


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> It has certainly freed my husband up to do work he loves.
> 
> I am so grateful for the vision he had 24 years ago. I don't think I would have ever come up with it myself. But I am so happy he did.


It certainly would have helped me in my career as well, not now but then. Divorce set me back years in my field unfortunately but I will never regret the sacrifices I made in my career for my kids, they came first and still do.


----------



## Wolf1974

Andy1001 said:


> When I lived in NY it wasn't the restaurant that was important it was which nightclub you could get into.


Well here women get in free anyway and get drinks bought for them all night. Even my GF is first to admit that she never paid for a drink during college lol


----------



## Andy1001

Wolf1974 said:


> Well here women get in free anyway and get drinks bought for them all night. Even my GF is first to admit that she never paid for a drink during college lol


I don't know where you live obviously but I was in Vegas with a bachelor party years ago and the nightclub we ended up at was letting women in free but it was a hundred bucks for guys.In Manhattan where I lived the girls had to pay same as the guys.It may be different now of course.


----------



## Tillaan

She'sStillGotIt said:


> I've heard of women who only 'date' to get free dinners and I honestly can't imagine doing that.
> 
> Basically, that would entail making sure I'm dressed nicely and my hair and makeup are perfect, going to the restaurant and spending two or three hours making grueling 'small talk' with a stranger and pretending to be interested in him when I'm really not, and all so I can 'score' that coveted $16.99 chicken Parmesan dinner on *his* dime.
> 
> Who the hell DOES that?
> 
> I'd rather sit home in my sweats eating Hamburger Helper for dinner and watching Judge Judy. I'm dead serious. That's just WAY too much work for a free dinner.



My STBXW that's who. She is quite proud of it too. They are out there. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jaquen

For me it's far less relevant who pays, and more about who feels entitled to be paid for.

This isn't 1955. The reasons that men pay have largely been abolished in western society. 

I can't with a woman who feels like she's entitled to be paid for. It's one thing for me to offer, but I prefer to be with a woman who sincerely offers to pay. And not one of these women who claims she's fine with it, offers, and then judges a man if he takes her up on it. I mean a woman who truly, sincerely wants to pay, regardless of how often it actually happens.

It's a heart issue, it's about intention. Thankfully I married a woman who feels the same. We're in our 30s and have been together since early college, and friends since we were 14. We've seen each other's economic ups and downs. There have been times when one or the other made much more, and that person took on the bulk of the dating costs (and later living costs). It's never been an issue. My wife, even before she was my wife, paid for plenty, and vice versa. Over the last couple years I've paid more, because I've made more, and now that she just landed a new full time job, she's looking forward to being able to pay more again. There have been seasons in our life where she was the primary payer. 

It's amazing not to deal with any of this "who should pay" BS. Right now a good friend of mine is going out with a woman who makes more than him, but she expects him to pay. He's spent nearly 2k over the last month or so dating, which is absolutely absurd of him, but it's also absurd that she makes much more than him, yet is expected to be taken care of. That's disgusting.


----------



## Wolf1974

Andy1001 said:


> I don't know where you live obviously but I was in Vegas with a bachelor party years ago and the nightclub we ended up at was letting women in free but it was a hundred bucks for guys.In Manhattan where I lived the girls had to pay same as the guys.It may be different now of course.


Well nothing that extreme here. But it is common place for guys to have to pay cover and drinks and women to get in free and then have free drink cards to drink all night free.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Wolf1974 said:


> Well nothing that extreme here. But it is common place for guys to have to pay cover and drinks and women to get in free and then have free drink cards to drink all night free.


That's to give incentive for women to come. Without the women, the men wont' come, hence no business at all. Best to give some freebies so as to draw in those who are willing to pay. A bar with no babes is a bare bar indeed.


----------



## Andy1001

Wolf1974 said:


> Well nothing that extreme here. But it is common place for guys to have to pay cover and drinks and women to get in free and then have free drink cards to drink all night free.


That must suit the wealthier guys.The drinks are probably very expensive and along with paying to get in its going to be an expensive evening.I have seen women being given tickets for drinks while entering a nightclub but the drinks weren't the expensive ones,just cheap crap.


----------



## Wolf1974

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> That's to give incentive for women to come. Without the women, the men wont' come, hence no business at all. Best to give some freebies so as to draw in those who are willing to pay. A bar with no babes is a bare bar indeed.


I'm aware that's called ladies night. Generally every Thursday night here Rest of the week they generally get in free but the establishment won't let them drink free all night


----------



## Wolf1974

Andy1001 said:


> That must suit the wealthier guys.The drinks are probably very expensive and along with paying to get in its going to be an expensive evening.I have seen women being given tickets for drinks while entering a nightclub but the drinks weren't the expensive ones,just cheap crap.


The couple bars I was aware of that followed this model the options were champagne house wine or draft beer. Definitely not top shelf stuff


----------



## Andy1001

Wolf1974 said:


> The couple bars I was aware of that followed this model the options were champagne house wine or draft beer. Definitely not top shelf stuff


I am one of the guys who always paid for dates,it was no big deal I had a great job that paid well.The one thing that always pissed me off though was when you offered to buy a girl a drink and you could she was drinking beer or wine but she would ask for an expensive cocktail or champagne.


----------



## ThirdTimeLucky!

The thread is fascinating. It's really interesting to read all the different perspectives.

Personally I have a really good job with income that probably far exceeds many of the men I've dated. However, I really do appreciate when a man pays for dates. They don't have to be fancy dates or expensive but when a man takes the time to put some thought into it and to pick up the tab I find that very attractive.

That said I always make sure he know the gesture is appreciated. And if all goes well and things progress, I make sure he feel appreciated too


----------



## heartsbeating

We ate out during the week. Husband's pick. A no-frills, family-run, local Italian place. We've eaten there before. We overheard a customer ask for the menu. The reply was 'I _am_ the menu, what do you need?' ha ha love that. Upon leaving, my husband stated if this was our first date he'd take me there. I asked why. He said '..because the sooner you get to know what I'm about, the better..' 

How does he get to know what I'd be about? He asked where I'd pick if it was our first date. It'd either be a nice French restaurant or maybe Indian/Thai food. He dug that too. Then he mentioned getting Thai food take-out to have at home. Oh, hell yes. Do I get to wear pajamas? That'd be a heck of a dinner date 

It seems he's 'old-fashioned' in that he'd expect to pay.


----------



## jaquen

I wonder if those in the "old fashioned" category are likewise willing to accept ALL the stipulations and expectations that come along with men paying.

Because that tradition didn't start in a vacuum. There are a host of reasons why men typically paid, and it wasn't simply because women have vaginas.

Otherwise it's a situation where you're demanding equality, to no longer be expected to act, behave, and perform in accordance with the "old fashion" expectations that came along with men footing the bills, only in areas that benefit the woman. And isn't that the height of inequality? That you deserve to have dinners paid for, doors opened, chairs pulled out, etc, by virtue of your sex alone, without the concomitant financial, social and cultural realities that justified men being the primary payers?

Why exactly are women in the Western world entitled to a free lunch?


----------



## NextTimeAround

jaquen said:


> I wonder if those in the "old fashioned" category are likewise willing to accept ALL the stipulations and expectations that come along with men paying.
> 
> Because that tradition didn't start in a vacuum. There are a host of reasons why men typically paid, and it wasn't simply because women have vaginas.
> 
> Otherwise it's a situation where you're demanding equality, to no longer be expected to act, behave, and perform in accordance with the "old fashion" expectations that came along with men footing the bills, only in areas that benefit the woman. And isn't that the height of inequality? That you deserve to have dinners paid for, doors opened, chairs pulled out, etc, by virtue of your sex alone, without the concomitant financial, social and cultural realities that justified men being the primary payers?
> 
> Why exactly are women in the Western world entitled to a free lunch?


Let's hear your opinion, what factors would motivate you to pay for 80 to 100% of the costs surrounding dating?
......... Would it be need? ie, they are students; single moms; long term unemployed, etc
...........or Would it be desire? You think this woman is so hot you want to do everything to please her?


Anyone else can answer as well.


----------



## Tillaan

NextTimeAround said:


> Let's hear your opinion, what factors would motivate you to pay for 80 to 100% of the costs surrounding dating?
> ......... Would it be need? ie, they are students; single moms; long term unemployed, etc
> ...........or Would it be desire? You think this woman is so hot you want to do everything to please her?
> 
> 
> Anyone else can answer as well.




I think for me two major factors would be if I invited the other person and if it was something I wanted to do. If the activity was their idea and the decision mutually made to go do it I would fully expect then to chip in, I'm a very upfront person and I would ask when making the plans. Also if they invited me I wouldn't feel comfortable assuming they were going to pay and would decline if it was put of my budget. But, I don't have the luxury of disposable income and don't care if women lose interest who would likely not be compatible anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## XenChi

Times have evolved, and so has traditions. Some women want equal rights, yet none of the liabilities that come with them. Simply put, both should pay. Whether it's "dutch" or some form of alternating.


----------



## XenChi

jaquen said:


> I wonder if those in the "old fashioned" category are likewise willing to accept ALL the stipulations and expectations that come along with men paying.
> 
> Because that tradition didn't start in a vacuum. There are a host of reasons why men typically paid, and it wasn't simply because women have vaginas.
> 
> Otherwise it's a situation where you're demanding equality, to no longer be expected to act, behave, and perform in accordance with the "old fashion" expectations that came along with men footing the bills, only in areas that benefit the woman. And isn't that the height of inequality? That you deserve to have dinners paid for, doors opened, chairs pulled out, etc, by virtue of your sex alone, without the concomitant financial, social and cultural realities that justified men being the primary payers?
> 
> Why exactly are women in the Western world entitled to a free lunch?


Precisely what I had on my mind.......Bravo!


----------



## jaquen

NextTimeAround said:


> Let's hear your opinion, what factors would motivate you to pay for 80 to 100% of the costs surrounding dating?
> ......... Would it be need? ie, they are students; single moms; long term unemployed, etc
> ...........or Would it be desire? You think this woman is so hot you want to do everything to please her?
> 
> 
> Anyone else can answer as well.


In my life now? Nothing would motivate me to pay for a woman who felt _entitled_ to it. There's no level of hotness that would make that attractive. That kind of entitlement is a massive turn off. The only entitlements I'm fine with are mutually agreed upon ones.

I'm attracted to generous, kind, giving women. It's really not about who pays. I'd have no trouble even paying for the overwhelming majority of dating costs, assuming it's financially feasible, if I knew for certain that the woman didn't feel entitled to being paid for. If she offered, genuinely, and without judgment if I did let her pay, or split, that goes a long way with me.


----------



## TX-SC

The person who asks. 

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk


----------



## CuddleBug

lovelygirl said:


> I friend of mine, 35 y.o. is single and hasn't been in a realtionship for 3 years now. During one of our discussions, she said "I don't need just a guy in my life... I need a man. But where are men today? To even think that they can't even pay you a dinner? _A real man wouldn't allow me to pay for the dinner, even if I insisted on doing so..._".
> 
> This got me thinking if men here agree with this saying or not.
> 
> Do you think you should pay most of the time or you dislike it when you're the one paying most of/all the time?
> Would you prefer she paid most of the time?
> or you think both partners should take turns?
> Is there any difference if you're at the early stages of dating/relationship ?
> 
> I will say my opinion later.




A real man would never waste his time with a demanding princess of a woman........just run away.


My dad always took care of my mom paying for dinners, etc. because back then, the man worked and the ladies had kids and stayed at home. Today, men and women both equally work and contribute because the economy has left us no choice.


When I dated Mrs.CuddleBug, I initially paid for everything. We'd meet at a certain location, have our date and went on our separate ways. As we got to know each other, she started paying for herself at times and even for me as well. I had no issues with that. I loved it. A woman that works and is my equal instead of a demanding princess.......

After we got married, sometimes I treat her and sometimes she treats me. It depends who is out and near a place to get a bite to eat.

Sometimes I'll have dinner ready as a surprise when she gets home and sometimes when I get home, there's dinner as well.

It really doesn't matter.


----------



## jld

CuddleBug said:


> A real man would never waste his time with a demanding princess of a woman........just run away.
> 
> 
> My dad always took care of my mom paying for dinners, etc. because back then, the man worked and the ladies had kids and stayed at home. Today, men and women both equally work and contribute because the economy has left us no choice.
> 
> 
> When I dated Mrs.CuddleBug, I initially paid for everything. We'd meet at a certain location, have our date and went on our separate ways. As we got to know each other, she started paying for herself at times and even for me as well. I had no issues with that. I loved it. A woman that works and is my equal instead of a demanding princess.......
> 
> After we got married, sometimes I treat her and sometimes she treats me. It depends who is out and near a place to get a bite to eat.
> 
> Sometimes I'll have dinner ready as a surprise when she gets home and sometimes when I get home, there's dinner as well.
> 
> It really doesn't matter.


Economics may have changed, but what at least some women find attractive may not.


----------



## CuddleBug

jld said:


> Economics may have changed, but what at least some women find attractive may not.



It depends on what type of woman you want.


A demanding wanting to be pampered princess OR a real woman who in an equal.


Being pampered and even spoiled isn't a good thing.


----------



## musicftw07

jld said:


> Economics may have changed, but what at least some women find attractive may not.


Then those women will simply have to adjust. Responsible men won't make decisions that are contrary to the modem economic landscape, regardless of the fact it may turn off those women.

Financial solvency is more important than finding a mate or engaging in sexual intercourse.


----------



## Andy1001

musicftw07 said:


> Then those women will simply have to adjust. Responsible men won't make decisions that are contrary to the modem economic landscape, regardless of the fact it may turn off those women.
> 
> Financial solvency is more important than finding a mate or engaging in sexual intercourse.


I don't think romance would be your strong point dude,you make dating seem more like a business transaction than two people having an enjoyable evening together.You need to lighten up a little.You say women will have to adjust,why should they adjust for you.Are you that hot that girls who up to now have had most of their dates paid for are suddenly going to insist on paying for you.Dating is fun and if you are going to be worrying about who will pay then you may as well stay at home.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> I don't think romance would be your strong point dude,you make dating seem more like a business transaction than two people having an enjoyable evening together.You need to lighten up a little.You say women will have to adjust,why should they adjust for you.Are you that hot that girls who up to now have had most of their dates paid for are suddenly going to insist on paying for you.Dating is fun and if you are going to be worrying about who will pay then you may as well stay at home.


If women want to be with men who do not want to pay, they will adjust, I guess.

Other women will decide it is not worth it.


----------



## Personal

Andy1001 said:


> I don't think romance would be your strong point dude,you make dating seem more like a business transaction than two people having an enjoyable evening together.You need to lighten up a little.You say women will have to adjust,why should they adjust for you.Are you that hot that girls who up to now have had most of their dates paid for are suddenly going to insist on paying for you.Dating is fun and if you are going to be worrying about who will pay then you may as well stay at home.


Some men are or were that hot to some women.

During the 1990's when I was a young (very fit) man of 21 through 26 (a former Regular soldier and then Reserve NCO) and dating the field, most of my dates and sexual partners asked me out, usually paid and those with cars often picked me up as well. Inclusive of my (2nd) wife who I have been married to for 18 years and have been with for close to 21 years, with lots of frequent and very plentiful sex throughout our relationship.

When I was 17 I met my first wife at a party when she was 16, she asked a friend of hers to ask me to talk to her. So I said hello, she said something along the lines of "you're beautiful" (she was beautiful as well) before asking me to kiss her, we then had sex together a few hours later.

Rinse and repeat the same sort of thing into my mid-late thirties, with some women and even some men buying me drinks, asking me to dance, saying hello, offering me sex and asking me out on dates (I turned down all of the men and plenty of women as well). I even had one Irish woman sight unseen ask me out on a date because she liked chatting to me on the phone, when I told her the room in my then shared house had already been taken.

Married, single, in a relationship it didn't matter, some women just seemed to be drawn to me. That said it certainly wasn't all women and it would be foolish to think it would ever have been all or even most.

This extended beyond dating though, when I was 13 through 16 I was involved with a spiritualist group linked to a then popular author, and a number of film, theatre and television stars. Yet I was fawned over by those adults as some sort of old soul with a supposedly extraordinary aura who was destined to become a great spiritual teacher and healer (I am now an atheist). Seriously I would hold my hands over some of them and they would claim I was healing them, they would keep my poetry and hang on my words and much more. The thing is I was none of those things, I was just an attractive kid who was gifted (above the 98th percentile), not socially inept, personable, charming, arty with good taste and had an exceptional talent in visual arts. I am not sorry I had that experience though.

Now I'm fat (although losing that weight) and middle aged, so the instances of women throwing themselves at me has waned somewhat, yet some still seem to be drawn to me on occasion despite that.

My wife says I am like no man she has ever known, to the point that she asked me out despite being with another man in the hope of getting to be with me. Until being with me, she had never paid for a date nor asked a man out (they always chased her and paid). Other women I have been with have said the same, although I'm certainly not everyone's cup of tea. Some of my wife's married female friends have also told her, they love talking to me and I am not like any other men they have known.

---

As to being romantic, paying for dates has had nothing to do with it for me. Romance for me is so much more than paying.

Talking deeply about things goes a very long way, writing goes a very long way. Being able to render wonderful portraits and nudes with a pencil, pen or brush goes a very long way (some of my non-nude artwork is in two national collections). Being lucky enough to be accomplished at sex goes a very long way, knowing beauty intimately goes a very long way.

Being confident, creative, talented and exciting has also helped as well.

Connecting deeply goes a very long way.

Plus having a number of mutual "love" at first sight experiences also goes a long way, it's quite sweet when a woman you haven't met before sees you and you see them and with no words spoken you both can't stop smiling at each other. They're excited, you're excited and you both can't help but want to talk to each other, touch, kiss and then have sex.

Unfortunately some of those encounters aren't always well timed, I recall one woman who was married when I was divorced, who from that moment of first sight she wanted me and I wanted her. We acted immediately smiled, talked, touched, kissed and emotionally fell into each other. Yet we didn't have sex despite an overwhelming desire for it because she was married, so we let each other pass.

Paying for the date in my experience has been irrelevant, when a woman felt like she wanted to fall into me with her whole being, she then wanted to date me, pay for it and have sex with me.

---

As to this gender thing where some think men ought to pay on dates to be men, I don't care for such contrived nonsense?

I'm not the strong silent type I don't think I match what the generic "they" say men should be, I love talking and love communicating and prefer the company of women over men.

Although I do feel at home with men as well, I don't follow any sport except the Tour de France plus except for volleyball always hated playing sport. Have no interest in tools, boats, tractors, trucks, boats and only a very slight interest in cars.

On the other hand I love reading, love art, love music, love women aesthetically, emotionally and intellectually, am very sexual. While I am also fascinated by war and psychological manipulation (which I did for a war in 2003) plus aviation.

One should always do what works for them, if a guy wants a woman and his paying for the dates is required to see her open her legs then he should pay. On the other hand I didn't need to pay for dates to see their legs open up, so I did what worked for me.



jld said:


> Economics may have changed, but what at least some women find attractive may not.


Yes some women always seem to be attracted to some very handsome, charming, clever and rather talented men, to the point that they ask them and out and pay for the date lest they miss out.


----------



## Andy1001

Personal said:


> Some men are or were that hot to some women.
> 
> During the 1990's when I was a young (very fit) man of 21 through 26 (a former Regular soldier and then Reserve NCO) and dating the field, most of my dates and sexual partners asked me out, usually paid and those with cars often picked me up as well. Inclusive of my (2nd) wife who I have been married to for 18 years and have been with for close to 21 years, with lots of frequent and very plentiful sex throughout our relationship.
> 
> When I was 17 I met my first wife at a party when she was 16, she asked a friend of hers to ask me to talk to her. So I said hello, she said something along the lines of "you're beautiful" (she was beautiful as well) before asking me to kiss her, we then had sex together a few hours later.
> 
> Rinse and repeat the same sort of thing into my mid-late thirties, with some women and even some men buying me drinks, asking me to dance, saying hello, offering me sex and asking me out on dates (I turned down all of the men and plenty of women as well). I even had one Irish woman sight unseen ask me out on a date because she liked chatting to me on the phone, when I told her the room in my then shared house had already been taken.
> 
> Married, single, in a relationship it didn't matter, some women just seemed to be drawn to me. That said it certainly wasn't all women and it would be foolish to think it would ever have been all or even most.
> 
> This extended beyond dating though, when I was 13 through 16 I was involved with a spiritualist group linked to a then popular author, and a number of film, theatre and television stars. Yet I was fawned over by those adults as some sort of old soul with a supposedly extraordinary aura who was destined to become a great spiritual teacher and healer (I am now an atheist). Seriously I would hold my hands over some of them and they would claim I was healing them, they would keep my poetry and hang on my words and much more. The thing is I was none of those things, I was just an attractive kid who was gifted (above the 98th percentile), not socially inept, personable, charming, arty with good taste and had an exceptional talent in visual arts. I am not sorry I had that experience though.
> 
> Now I'm fat (although losing that weight) and middle aged, so the instances of women throwing themselves at me has waned somewhat, yet some still seem to be drawn to me on occasion despite that.
> 
> My wife says I am like no man she has ever known, to the point that she asked me out despite being with another man in the hope of getting to be with me. Until being with me, she had never paid for a date nor asked a man out (they always chased her and paid). Other women I have been with have said the same, although I'm certainly not everyone's cup of tea. Some of my wife's married female friends have also told her, they love talking to me and I am not like any other men they have known.
> 
> ---
> 
> As to being romantic, paying for dates has had nothing to do with it for me. Romance for me is so much more than paying.
> 
> Talking deeply about things goes a very long way, writing goes a very long way. Being able to render wonderful portraits and nudes with a pencil, pen or brush goes a very long way (some of my non-nude artwork is in two national collections). Being lucky enough to be accomplished at sex goes a very long way, knowing beauty intimately goes a very long way.
> 
> Being confident, creative, talented and exciting has also helped as well.
> 
> Connecting deeply goes a very long way.
> 
> Plus having a number of mutual "love" at first sight experiences also goes a long way, it's quite sweet when a woman you haven't met before sees you and you see them and with no words spoken you both can't stop smiling at each other. They're excited, you're excited and you both can't help but want to talk to each other, touch, kiss and then have sex.
> 
> Unfortunately some of those encounters aren't always well timed, I recall one woman who was married when I was divorced, who from that moment of first sight she wanted me and I wanted her. We acted immediately smiled, talked, touched, kissed and emotionally fell into each other. Yet we didn't have sex despite an overwhelming desire for it because she was married, so we let each other pass.
> 
> Paying for the date in my experience has been irrelevant, when a woman felt like she wanted to fall into me with her whole being, she then wanted to date me, pay for it and have sex with me.
> 
> ---
> 
> As to this gender thing where some think men ought to pay on dates to be men, I don't care for such contrived nonsense?
> 
> I'm not the strong silent type I don't think I match what the generic "they" say men should be, I love talking and love communicating and prefer the company of women over men.
> 
> Although I do feel at home with men as well, I don't follow any sport except the Tour de France plus except for volleyball always hated playing sport. Have no interest in tools, boats, tractors, trucks, boats and only a very slight interest in cars.
> 
> On the other hand I love reading, love art, love music, love women aesthetically, emotionally and intellectually, am very sexual. While I am also fascinated by war and psychological manipulation (which I did for a war in 2003) plus aviation.
> 
> One should always do what works for them, if a guy wants a woman and his paying for the dates is required to see her open her legs then he should pay. On the other hand I didn't need to pay for dates to see their legs open up, so I did what worked for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes some women always seem to be attracted to some very handsome, charming, clever and rather talented men, to the point that they ask them and out and pay for the date lest they miss out.


I think you missed my point which was if a guy asks a girl out why spend the evening worrying over who pays.


----------



## BradWesley2

musicftw07 said:


> Then those women will simply have to adjust. Responsible men won't make decisions that are contrary to the modem economic landscape, regardless of the fact it may turn off those women.
> 
> Financial solvency is more important than finding a mate or engaging in sexual intercourse.


"Responsible men won't make decisions that are contrary to the modern economic landscape" Really dude, if taking a woman out to lunch or dinner is going to create an economic hardship, or require a loan, I suggest you find a woman who will be happy with a coffee and a donut.

With your attitude and thought process, I'm assuming you don't get laid much.


----------



## Andy1001

BradWesley2 said:


> "Responsible men won't make decisions that are contrary to the modern economic landscape" Really dude, if taking a woman out to lunch or dinner is going to create an economic hardship, or require a loan, I suggest you find a woman who will be happy with a coffee and a donut.
> 
> With your attitude and thought process, I'm assuming you don't get laid much.


He likes regular sex.Once a year.😈


----------



## BradWesley2

Andy1001 said:


> He likes regular sex.Once a year.😈


And on that occasion he has to break the bank, paying for a glass of orange juice, coffee and a croissant.


----------



## Marioshroomed

To answer the topic title, who should pay on a date?

I think its whoever plans the date. Usually the guy for the first date. And if a girl doesn't want to plan any dates herself she can find another guy.


----------



## musicftw07

BradWesley2 said:


> "Responsible men won't make decisions that are contrary to the modern economic landscape" Really dude, if taking a woman out to lunch or dinner is going to create an economic hardship, or require a loan, I suggest you find a woman who will be happy with a coffee and a donut.
> 
> With your attitude and thought process, I'm assuming you don't get laid much.


On the contrary. I'm in a monogamous, committed relationship with a gorgeous woman who is highly sexual.

I just don't place sex above money. Nor do I dole out my hard-earned money on those who are undeserving.

Shaming tactics don't work on me, btw.

And yes, my girlfriend is happy with coffee and a donut. I've also paid for an entire weekend vacation together, but that was after she proved to me that she was worth it.

Fun fact: our very first date was coffee. She offered to buy my coffee, and I allowed it.

ETA: I find any person who forgoes saving money in lieu of using that money for dating expenses to be financially irresponsible.


----------



## Wolf1974

BradWesley2 said:


> "Responsible men won't make decisions that are contrary to the modern economic landscape" Really dude, if taking a woman out to lunch or dinner is going to create an economic hardship, or require a loan, I suggest you find a woman who will be happy with a coffee and a donut.
> 
> With your attitude and thought process, I'm assuming you don't get laid much.


Wow 30 + pages in and still missing the point. This isn't about money spent it's about finding partners willing to contribute. Those who contribute have and should have agency in the relationship and therefore work to make it successful which has always been my experience. I have known women, known not dated, who make demands of money spent on them. Soon as the next guys comes along with more there they go. Not appealing to me but I'm also a person who doesn't find money as the all important thing in life.

I get laid 4-5 times a week. My GF isn't into coffee and donuts we eat more clean than that. And always happy to pay for lunch and she can get the movie.


----------



## jaquen

Andy1001 said:


> I don't think romance would be your strong point dude,you make dating seem more like a business transaction than two people having an enjoyable evening together.You need to lighten up a little.You say women will have to adjust,why should they adjust for you.Are you that hot that girls who up to now have had most of their dates paid for are suddenly going to insist on paying for you.Dating is fun and if you are going to be worrying about who will pay then you may as well stay at home.



Let's be real here, OK? It's not like the supremely attractive, 9/10 kinda women are the only ones expecting dates to be paid for. Plenty of women, regardless of looks, feel entitled to free meals.

The great equalizer is that most people are pretty average looking. Extraordinary dimes, both male and female, are exceptions that have very little to do with this topic.

So yes, if the average man stops the free meal train, than the average woman has no choice but to adjust. Just like the average woman has adjusted to working outside of the home, despite centuries of behavior to the contrary.

I actually think this divide is a very good thing. There are enough men and women now that truly believe in more egalitarian relationships, so it's easier to weed out incompatible people. If you're a man who doesn't want to foot the bill all the time just for the company of a vagina having human being, you know right off the bat who feels entitled, and who does not. And if you're a vagina having human being that feels entitled to free meals, there will always be plenty of men who've bought into that thinking, plenty who will pay for the pleasure of your company. Win win for all.


----------



## musicftw07

Andy1001 said:


> I don't think romance would be your strong point dude,you make dating seem more like a business transaction than two people having an enjoyable evening together.You need to lighten up a little.You say women will have to adjust,why should they adjust for you.Are you that hot that girls who up to now have had most of their dates paid for are suddenly going to insist on paying for you.Dating is fun and if you are going to be worrying about who will pay then you may as well stay at home.


You asked, "Why would they adjust for you?"

My response is a question: "What entitles them to my money?"

If all men stopped paying their way during dates, then they'd have two choices: 1) not date, or 2) pay their own way.

I care not which choice they make.

And yes, I have stayed home instead of dating many times. My savings skyrocketed as a result of that decision. To the point where this past year I've paid off all my debts and put in thousands of dollars into my house in the form of a bit of remodeling and repairs. I paid cash for it all. Just this last weekend I bought a brand new car and put down a substantial down payment from my savings.

Oh, and when I shattered my femur in a four-wheeling accident in 2015, I was off from work for over a month. And yet, thanks to my savings, I was able to pay my mortgage and utilities on time until my short term disability claim arrived.

There is literally nothing you could say that would ever convince me that spending that money on dates with random women is better spent.

(I have no problems spending that money on my girlfriend, mind you. But we go dutch more often now, and it works great for us.)


----------



## heartsbeating

Our guilty-pleasure is the show, First Dates UK.

My husband winces when the man doesn't take care of the bill. Asked why he feels the man should pay and he just feels it's the way it ought to be... regardless of whether it was a good/enjoyable/compatible date or not... and done so with grace. Apparently it's 'opportunity cost'. He's the same man that feels strongly about women (actually people in general) being able to provide for themselves financially (unless stay-at-home-parenting is part of the equation). And he has little tolerance for entitled attitudes. 

It's quirky-interesting watching the show together. Another wince he makes is when the man talks about why his ex broke up with him and puts himself down as a result/points out flaws. My husband will shake his head and say, 'He's just friend-zoned himself' and sure enough, they're the ones that don't get a second date. That's my husband's take on things.


----------



## jld

heartsbeating said:


> My husband winces when the man doesn't take care of the bill. Asked why he feels the man should pay and he just feels it's the way it ought to be... regardless of whether it was a good/enjoyable/compatible date or not... and done so with grace.



:iagree:

Good man you have there, hearts.


----------



## Andy1001

musicftw07 said:


> You asked, "Why would they adjust for you?"
> 
> My response is a question: "What entitles them to my money?"
> 
> If all men stopped paying their way during dates, then they'd have two choices: 1) not date, or 2) pay their own way.
> 
> I care not which choice they make.
> 
> And yes, I have stayed home instead of dating many times. My savings skyrocketed as a result of that decision. To the point where this past year I've paid off all my debts and put in thousands of dollars into my house in the form of a bit of remodeling and repairs. I paid cash for it all. Just this last weekend I bought a brand new car and put down a substantial down payment from my savings.
> 
> Oh, and when I shattered my femur in a four-wheeling accident in 2015, I was off from work for over a month. And yet, thanks to my savings, I was able to pay my mortgage and utilities on time until my short term disability claim arrived.
> 
> There is literally nothing you could say that would ever convince me that spending that money on dates with random women is better spent.
> 
> (I have no problems spending that money on my girlfriend, mind you. But we go dutch more often now, and it works great for us.)


No man has ever said on his deathbed that he wishes he had worked harder and went out at night less.


----------



## Andy1001

musicftw07 said:


> On the contrary. I'm in a monogamous, committed relationship with a gorgeous woman who is highly sexual.
> 
> I just don't place sex above money. Nor do I dole out my hard-earned money on those who are undeserving.
> 
> Shaming tactics don't work on me, btw.
> 
> And yes, my girlfriend is happy with coffee and a donut. I've also paid for an entire weekend vacation together, but that was after she proved to me that she was worth it.
> 
> Fun fact: our very first date was coffee. She offered to buy my coffee, and I allowed it.
> 
> ETA: I find any person who forgoes saving money in lieu of using that money for dating expenses to be financially irresponsible.


You paid for an ENTIRE weekend vacation when she proved she was worth it.
Wow!
The last of the big spenders.


----------



## Bananapeel

musicftw07 said:


> On the contrary. I'm in a monogamous, committed relationship with a gorgeous woman who is highly sexual.
> 
> I just don't place sex above money. Nor do I dole out my hard-earned money on those who are undeserving.
> 
> Shaming tactics don't work on me, btw.
> 
> And yes, my girlfriend is happy with coffee and a donut. *I've also paid for an entire weekend vacation together, but that was after she proved to me that she was worth it.*
> 
> I think this is the crux of the difference in dating philosophy. The people that feel differently than you look at dating as entertainment and they are paying to go out and have fun.
> 
> If I take a woman on a trip it is because I know I'll have more fun with her than without her. She doesn't need to prove anything to me or earn her right to go with me. Her role is to be a good companion and help ensure that we both have a great time. It's the same with taking her on a local date.
> 
> Fun fact: our very first date was coffee. She offered to buy my coffee, and I allowed it.
> 
> ETA: *I find any person who forgoes saving money in lieu of using that money for dating expenses to be financially irresponsible*.
> 
> I don't think anyone is advocating making poor financial decisions. If you are dating instead of properly handling your finances, then yes you are correct. But dating and saving money are not mutually exclusive. I have no problem doing both.


----------



## Andy1001

Have you noticed that most of the guys on this thread who advocate not paying for dates are all living with absolutely gorgeous women who are sexually attracted to them exclusively and insist on paying whenever they go out.
Yeah...........


----------



## NextTimeAround

CuddleBug said:


> It depends on what type of woman you want.
> 
> 
> A demanding wanting to be pampered princess OR a real woman who in an equal.
> 
> 
> Being pampered and even spoiled isn't a good thing.


Some people -- men included-- will interpret this type of behavior as "a woman who knows what he wants and is not afraid to go after it." Like it's a good thing.


----------



## musicftw07

Andy1001 said:


> Have you noticed that most of the guys on this thread who advocate not paying for dates are all liv ing with absolutely gorgeous women who are sexually attracted to them exclusively and insist on paying whenever they go out.
> Yeah...........


I'm not living with my girlfriend. Maybe in a couple more years we'll take that step, but neither of us are ready for that yet. We both have kids, we've both had terrible relationships in the past, and we're doing what we feel right is for us by waiting.

I don't give a **** whether you believe me or not. 

I've had this very discussion with my girlfriend in the past. And she is quite sympathetic to the mixed messages men get. She has absolutely no problem going dutch​, because she's independent and makes just as much money as I do. It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. What does matter is that she and I are compatible in that regard.

It also goes to show that men can still be successful in dating and relationships without following the traditional paradigm.

It's your money. Spend it however you want. Likewise, I spend my money however I want. Sometimes I choose to spend it in her, and sometimes I don't.

But sex isn't contingent on the amount of money I spend on her. What she craves more is my love, care, and devotion.

You know, the things that actually make a successful relationship.


----------



## Wolf1974

Andy1001 said:


> Have you noticed that most of the guys on this thread who advocate not paying for dates are all living with absolutely gorgeous women who are sexually attracted to them exclusively and insist on paying whenever they go out.
> Yeah...........


So are you saying I'm lying then because you can't comprehend some people may have different philosophy's toward dating, love, marriage?


----------



## musicftw07

Andy1001 said:


> No man has ever said on his deathbed that he wishes he had worked harder and went out at night less.


How old are you?


----------



## jaquen

Wolf1974 said:


> So are you saying I'm lying then because you can't comprehend some people may have different philosophy's toward dating, love, marriage?


The idea that there are men who can enjoy the company of women without the burden of paying for it is very threatening to a lot of people's world view. 

I'm not surprised to see quite a few of these kinds of responses in a thread like this.


----------



## ThirdTimeLucky!

I'm so glad there are still men out there who understand how to treat a woman and do it!

It's isn't about being entitled or having unreasonable expectations. Personally I believe it's rooted in the instinct that men are the protectors/providers and women like to feel protected/provided for.

That doesn't mean I would be unwilling to pay for some dates or split the bill, especially early on. It just means that it really feels good and is much appreciated when the man picks up the tab. 

Honestly, I earn more than most of my friends and a lot of them have kids (I don't) so less free time and disposable income. I often end up picking u the tab for lunch/coffee/whatever just so my friends can enjoy some of their limited free time.

I feels great when a man does the same for me.

So glad I'm seeing someone right now who absolutely refuses to let me spend a dime when we're together. I am sense it comes back to him in other ways. I appreciate his effort so I tend to spend more time getting dressed up for him, buying nice underwear and all that kind of stuff.

And when I say he pays for dates so far that's been everything from a good restaurant and a nice hotel room to take out pizza. It's not about spending a lot, it's just the gesture that counts.


----------



## EllisRedding

Curious on this. If a woman is the one who asks the guy out on the date, should he still be expected to pay?


----------



## ThirdTimeLucky!

EllisRedding said:


> Curious on this. If a woman is the one who asks the guy out on the date, should he still be expected to pay?


I think she should offer, especially early on. Perhaps even insist if it was first or second date and you know you don't want to see the guy again. But, it sure is nice when the man wants to take care of it.


----------



## jaquen

ThirdTimeLucky! said:


> It's isn't about being entitled or having unreasonable expectations. Personally I believe it's rooted in the instinct that men are the protectors/providers and women like to feel protected/provided for.


If a woman expects, on any level, to have her meals/activities paid for on dates, it is an entitlement. That's the very definition of entitlement; by sheer virtue of being a female, the pleasure of your company comes at a monetary cost.

It has nothing to do with the male instinct; a man's instinct has nothing to do with a woman's entitlement. A man could want to pay for every single cent of dating cost, and it still has nothing to do with whether a woman feels entitled to be paid for or not.

I dated, and then married, a woman who is not entitled. Did she enjoy having meals paid for, and feeling "provided" for? Absolutely. Did she have a problem going dutch, or paying the whole bill? Absolutely not. To this day she feels loved if I buy her anything, thanks me when I pay for our dates, but has ZERO issue with doing the same. Her motto is as long as the bill is paid, it doesn't matter where the money comes from; the most important part of the date is the time together, not the bill.

That's a woman who isn't entitled. Anything less is the very definition of it. At least if you're entitled, own it.


----------



## ThirdTimeLucky!

EllisRedding said:


> Curious on this. If a woman is the one who asks the guy out on the date, should he still be expected to pay?





jaquen said:


> If a woman expects, on any level, to have her meals/activities paid for on dates, it is an entitlement. That's the very definition of entitlement; by sheer virtue of being a female, the pleasure of your company comes at a monetary cost.
> 
> It has nothing to do with the male instinct; a man's instinct has nothing to do with a woman's entitlement. A man could want to pay for every single cent of dating cost, and it still has nothing to do with whether a woman feels entitled to be paid for or not.
> 
> I dated, and then married, a woman who is not entitled. Did she enjoy having meals paid for, and feeling "provided" for? Absolutely. Did she have a problem going dutch, or paying the whole bill? Absolutely not. To this day she feels loved if I buy her anything, thanks me when I pay for our dates, but has ZERO issue with doing the same. Her motto is as long as the bill is paid, it doesn't matter where the money comes from; the most important part of the date is the time together, not the bill.
> 
> That's a woman who isn't entitled. Anything less is the very definition of it. At least if you're entitled, own it.


I'm not sure you understood what I wrote.

I said personally, I'd be willing to pay but appreciate it when I don't have to.

That isn't entitlement.


----------



## jaquen

ThirdTimeLucky! said:


> I'm not sure you understood what I wrote.
> 
> I said personally, I'd be willing to pay but appreciate it when I don't have to.
> 
> That isn't entitlement.


I read your entire post. The following sentiment is the very definition of entitled:

"I'm so glad there are still men out there who understand how to treat a woman and do it!"

Why does you being born with a vagina mean that you deserve special treatment ?

Your entire posts can me summed in the following:

"I make good money, I could pay, but I MUCH prefer a man treat me well by paying my way".

Why should he? Any response that has anything to do with your sex is going result in "because I'm entitled", even if you never say the words.


----------



## jaquen

A very relevant article, featuring a pretty extensive study, detailing the acceptable sexism behind how fiercely women hold on to this old norm:

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...do-men-keep-paying-for-the-first-date/380387/

The conclusion: women seem to feel more comfortable cherry picking which sexist standards work in their favor. Similar to how many men are reluctant to pick up additional home care duties, even when his wife works outside the home just as much as he does.


----------



## NextTimeAround

To provide a bit of levity in the form of a somewhat tangent..........

Before the internet I was big consumer of Q&A columns. 

I noticed every now and then in the appropriate Q&A columns, there was the Question on whether a woman should for a date.

IME, the setup in the letter was inevitably:

1. The woman writing the letter (if it was a real letter) always made more money than her date / boyfriend.
_With women earning 80cents on the dollar, how often does that happen?_

2. The woman writing the letter claims that her date /boyfriend absolutely refuses to accept her offer to pay for the date. He gets upset, you know.
_Where do you find those men?_

So even from the so-called experts, columnists, I am not sure how honest they were in presenting what was realistic in the landscape.

and of course, no one offered any guidance on what to do if you suspected that you were being multi-dated.


----------



## ThirdTimeLucky!

jaquen said:


> I read your entire post. The following sentiment is the very definition of entitled:
> 
> "I'm so glad there are still men out there who understand how to treat a woman and do it!"
> 
> Why does you being born with a vagina mean that you deserve special treatment ?
> 
> Your entire posts can me summed in the following:
> 
> "I make good money, I could pay, but I MUCH prefer a man treat me well by paying my way".
> 
> Why should he? Any response that has anything to do with your sex is going result in "because I'm entitled", even if you never say the words.


Yes, I'm sure you did read the entire post but you've completely missed the point.

The point being that I don't EXPECT someone else to pay for dates but very much APPRECIATE it when they do.

Like I said, I don't have an issue with paying for a date or splitting the bill.



> Why should he? Any response that has anything to do with your sex is going result in "because I'm entitled", even if you never say the words.


Didn't say he should, said it's appreciated that he wants to.


----------



## jaquen

ThirdTimeLucky! said:


> Yes, I'm sure you did read the entire post but you've completely missed the point.
> 
> The point being that I don't EXPECT someone else to pay for dates but very much APPRECIATE it when they do.
> 
> Like I said, I don't have an issue with paying for a date or splitting the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say he should, said it's appreciated that he wants to.



That's wonderful.

But it doesn't line up with the sentiments in your original post, which start off with the notion that men who pay for you, and other women, are the ones who really know how to treat a woman.

Your post absolutely made it clear that you're willing to pay. I suppose my question is, if a man doesn't pay, does that affect how you see him in any negative way at all?


----------



## EllisRedding

NextTimeAround said:


> boyfriend.
> _With women earning 80cents on the dollar, how often does that happen?_


Been shown repeatedly that this 77/80 cent on the dollar is rather inaccurate ...


----------



## NextTimeAround

EllisRedding said:


> Been shown repeatedly that this 77/80 cent on the dollar is rather inaccurate ...


What was in the 80s? What is it today?


----------



## EllisRedding

NextTimeAround said:


> What was in the 80s? What is it today?


From some of the stuff I have read, the difference is more close to 94 cents on the dollar. It still should be 1:1 assuming the same exact work and path have been taken regardless of gender, but the gap has significantly closed since a while back. Of course though, this is based on equivalent careers. I believe some/many (?) women still choose traditionally more lower paying jobs


----------



## Kivlor

NextTimeAround said:


> What was in the 80s? What is it today?


94-97% is the usual quote. That's if you only compare same jobs and similar hours worked.

Some evidence that when you factor in things like months or even years off for child-rearing, women actually are better paid than men on average, for the same hours and work.

ETA: 77 cents on the dollar literally just tallies up "Men in the US earned a total of X dollars collectively. Women earned Y collectively. Y is 77% of X, therefore women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men." Doesn't compare one job to another. Doesn't compare hours worked. Doesn't factor experience / time taken off.


----------



## uhtred

Hmm, I've been out of the dating scene since the Permian extinction. For people worrying about who pays - what percentage of your annual income would you typically spend on a date?

I'm picturing something like 1/1000, so it just doesn't seem that important.


----------



## Wolf1974

uhtred said:


> Hmm, I've been out of the dating scene since the Permian extinction. For people worrying about who pays - what percentage of your annual income would you typically spend on a date?
> 
> I'm picturing something like 1/1000, so it just doesn't seem that important.


Date or dating in general? I mean a general date can be anything from a beer/coffee to a walk in the park all the way up to a concert and dinner.

When I was dating non commitment status it was a couple thousand a year. If you include all that I take care of for my gf it's probably closer to 10k a year. 

I am never worried about who pays so long as both contribute.


----------



## Wolf1974

jaquen said:


> The idea that there are men who can enjoy the company of women without the burden of paying for it is very threatening to a lot of people's world view.
> 
> I'm not surprised to see quite a few of these kinds of responses in a thread like this.


I'm not either. TAM has certainly showed me how small minded and narrow focused some people are. It's teenage and millennial think that comes to say well if you don't agree with my world view you are either wrong or lying. I have always thought people like that should just place everyone they don't agree with on ignore so they can create a safe place where everyone thinks the same as them. Either way I love diversity of thought so if people want to pay for everything on dating that's cool by me just won't ever be my way. That's not what I am looking for in a partner.:laugh:


----------



## jaquen

uhtred said:


> I'm picturing something like 1/1000, so it just doesn't seem that important.


This is _far_ beyond a money issue for a lot of men. To concentrate on the dollars and cents is missing the point entirely.


----------



## uhtred

I may be unusual in that money doesn't *matter* to me. Paying is just a random nice thing to do. If your date doesn't to random nice things back then you have a problem, but if they do, then its fine.

I do agree though that in general things need to be balanced. So, that is a question for the women here who do really want their dates to pay. What sorts of nice things do you do for your dates? 



jaquen said:


> This is _far_ beyond a money issue for a lot of men. To concentrate on the dollars and cents is misssng the point entirely.


----------



## Kivlor

uhtred said:


> I may be unusual in that money doesn't *matter* to me. Paying is just a random nice thing to do. If your date doesn't to random nice things back then you have a problem, but if they do, then its fine.
> 
> I do agree though that in general things need to be balanced. So, that is a question for the women here who do really want their dates to pay. What sorts of nice things do you do for your dates?


They graced you with their presence. They werent rude. What more do you want? :wink2:


----------



## NextTimeAround

jaquen said:


> This is _far_ beyond a money issue for a lot of men. To concentrate on the dollars and cents is misssng the point entirely.


Amounts can sometimes matter, but also the symbolism.

for example, the first Valentine's Day with my husband seemed to start off well. He booked the restaurant that I chose 3 weeks in advance.

I waited out in the cold for a bus to get to the restaurant. I later found out that he would pay for taxis to be able to see a woman he knew was dating at least one other man.

After a 3 course meal with a bottle of wine split between us, he suggested that we go somewhere else. For what I'm not sure. But as we were already in the habit of my spending the night at his place, we chose a bar on the way to his place. So he orders a glass of wine for each of us and then tries to get me to pay for them. I honestly don't have clear memory as to whether I did or not. I think I refused.

But after thinking about that maneuver that night and learning more about the kind of relationship he had had with his so called friend (she would advise him), I think he was really driven to get me for pay for _something_ that evening.

Ergo, a symbolic act that was so unnecessary because, of course, 2 glasses of wine would not have been even 10% of what he spent at dinner.

We were somewhat close to his place that it wasn't worth taking the bus or the tube back to his place. At the same time, hailing a taxi just simply did not cross his mind.

[Somewhere along the line, I had enough insight to know that this relationship was worth salvaging........]


----------



## jaquen

uhtred said:


> I may be unusual in that money doesn't *matter* to me. Paying is just a random nice thing to do. If your date doesn't to random nice things back then you have a problem, but if they do, then its fine.


That doesn't make you unusual at all. 

IA, paying is a "nice thing to do". I personally would prefer that both parties be opening to being "nice".

I really think this debate, and the division over it, is a very good thing. I helps people weed out incompatible partners. Better that men take strong, clear stances on this, so that both parties can make informed decisions.


----------



## ThirdTimeLucky!

uhtred said:


> I may be unusual in that money doesn't *matter* to me. Paying is just a random nice thing to do. If your date doesn't to random nice things back then you have a problem, but if they do, then its fine.
> 
> I do agree though that in general things need to be balanced. So, that is a question for the women here who do really want their dates to pay. What sorts of nice things do you do for your dates?


Just a couple examples:

When he's really busy at work I'll drive someplace close/convenient to him (it's a 4 hour drive) then we'll do something very low key. I also never complain is he has to take a lot of calls or get sidetracking into work stuff when we're together.
When he comes to see me I make sure I have his fav beer or wine on hand and suggest we just stay home from the rest of the evening, which usually involves a massage (for him) and I'll cook diner.
I buy him random gifts if I happen to see something he'd like.
Go with him to events related to his hobbies that are like watching paint dry for me but I know he appreciates the effort.
If we're going out I always go to a look of effort to look my best and take note of what he likes, be it a certain perfume, hairstyle, whatever.
If he's REALLY stressed then round 1 is ALL about him


----------



## Personal

EllisRedding said:


> Curious on this. If a woman is the one who asks the guy out on the date, should he still be expected to pay?


In my experience of dating (where more women asked me out than I asked them) while separated and then divorced 1992-1999, when I was 21 through to almost 28. They (who were mostly employed university graduates or university students, usually paid at their insistence while a few were fine with sharing the costs since I always offered.

If someone is doing the asking regardless of their gender, I don't see why they can't pay.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Here is another twist when it comes to money spent on dates:

On 2 occasions that I am thinking of, while I thanked my date for dinner, they then put me down saying well the restaurant wasn't all that great anyway.

Why do men do that?

I thought men liked receiving appreciation.


----------



## Tillaan

NextTimeAround said:


> Here is another twist when it comes to money spent on dates:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2 occasions that I am thinking of, while I thanked my date for dinner, they then put me down saying well the restaurant wasn't all that great anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do men do that?
> 
> 
> 
> I thought men liked receiving appreciation.




Some people just complain. They are just negative and will never change. If they do this early they've done you a favor. 

Or some are like me, when paying for something I fully expect to get what I'm paying. I probably wouldn't do this on date, not meaning any offense here, but how were the dates? Was there any connection or was it meh. If it was not good then they were possibly critical of the restaurant because they didn't have a good time overall. May not be your fault could just be not compatible. if the service/food was bad but the date was great that should be something to laugh about at the end of the night not something to grumble about. 

There may be many other possible reasons those are just two thoughts that came to mind. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wolf1974

NextTimeAround said:


> Here is another twist when it comes to money spent on dates:
> 
> On 2 occasions that I am thinking of, while I thanked my date for dinner, they then put me down saying well the restaurant wasn't all that great anyway.
> 
> Why do men do that?
> 
> I thought men liked receiving appreciation.


how do you draw the correlation between the two ? If I don't like a restraunt it doesn't have anything to do with my date?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

heartsbeating said:


> My husband winces when the man doesn't take care of the bill. Asked why he feels the man should pay and he just feels it's the way it ought to be... regardless of whether it was a good/enjoyable/compatible date or not... and done so with grace.


 My husband is the same way.. same "old school" Gentleman attitude... though I could see him being suckered if he wasn't careful.. I could have brought him to the cleaners the way he treated me when we met... This probably sounds bad, it was his "willingness"..... I actually put the reigns on him... I felt very loved, cared for... but still I was always on the look out for a GOOD DEAL... something in me can't stand money being wasted....it was more me to say... "Nahh... lets not go there.. too expensive, how about here"...or I'd say I want to wait to get some coupons.. I would always get water, look at the specials.. I think he knew early on.. he'd not have to worry about me sucking his money.. I was [email protected]# He even took me shopping for clothes at the Mall.. 

Also I have a big heart, and can't stand Good-hearted people being USED for anything... (like allowing a guy who is into you to go above & beyond, knowing you don't feel the same, then friend-zoning him soon after)... I think very low of people who could do that... they are deplorable..... 

I feel strongly any man with a Giving nature, Old fashioned like this, should be very cautious ...to read in between the lines... is she REALLY into you.. or using you -till something better comes along ? Most especially if one is of meager means...


----------



## uhtred

Some people have a really difficult time dealing with praise. Really. They appreciate it, but can't figure out what to say in response and babble whatever comes into their minds. 

You: Thank you, that was a great dinner

Him: [um...she thanked me, I'll sound like an idiot if I thank her. I could thank her for her company...non not romantic. Um... crap, I'm taking too long, maybe I'll try to make it look like I'm modest..] The place wasn't that great anyway [DOH!]

Him when its too late [should have said " I had a wonderful time"]




NextTimeAround said:


> Here is another twist when it comes to money spent on dates:
> 
> On 2 occasions that I am thinking of, while I thanked my date for dinner, they then put me down saying well the restaurant wasn't all that great anyway.
> 
> Why do men do that?
> 
> I thought men liked receiving appreciation.


----------



## NextTimeAround

uhtred said:


> Some people have a really difficult time dealing with praise. Really. They appreciate it, but can't figure out what to say in response and babble whatever comes into their minds.
> 
> You: Thank you, that was a great dinner
> 
> Him: [um...she thanked me, I'll sound like an idiot if I thank her. I could thank her for her company...non not romantic. Um... crap, I'm taking too long, maybe I'll try to make it look like I'm modest..] The place wasn't that great anyway [DOH!]
> 
> Him when its too late [should have said " I had a wonderful time"]


This makes me feel as if I am viewed as a cheap date and not deserving of anything better.


----------



## jaquen

NextTimeAround said:


> Here is another twist when it comes to money spent on dates:
> 
> On 2 occasions that I am thinking of, while I thanked my date for dinner, they then put me down saying well the restaurant wasn't all that great anyway.
> 
> Why do men do that?
> 
> I thought men liked receiving appreciation.


You have a really bad habit of going out with some crap men, having these bizarre, awful experiences, then blaming it on "men".

No, it's not "men". It's been the men you choose to date. The common denominator is you.


----------



## uhtred

I was suggesting that he said whatever came into his mind and it was stupid. 





NextTimeAround said:


> This makes me feel as if I am viewed as a cheap date and not deserving of anything better.


----------



## Apexmale

I would and have always paid. Even if it was just a friendly date.

Sent from my SM-T337T using Tapatalk


----------



## lovelygirl

CuddleBug said:


> It depends on what type of woman you want.
> 
> 
> A demanding wanting to be pampered princess OR a real woman who in an equal.
> 
> 
> Being pampered and even spoiled isn't a good thing.


I have to disagree with you here. Just becaue the man pays doesn't mean the woman needs to be pampered.
When the man pays, I call it chivalry. Sure, I'll want to pay and make the effort to pay ...but when the man takes charge...it turns me ON in seconds. Not because I"m getting free dinner, but because he wants to take the lead...and I love that.


----------



## lovelygirl

ThirdTimeLucky! said:


> So glad I'm seeing someone right now who absolutely refuses to let me spend a dime when we're together. I am sense it comes back to him in other ways. I appreciate his effort so I tend to spend more time getting dressed up for him, buying nice underwear and all that kind of stuff.
> 
> And when I say he pays for dates so far that's been everything from a good restaurant and a nice hotel room to take out pizza. It's not about spending a lot, it's just the gesture that counts.


I love that part. 

I used to date a man a few weeks ago...who wouldn't think twice about paying for our dates, either dinners/lunch/coffee. The first man ever, (out of all the ones I've dated in the past) that treated me like a lady and had chivalry rooted in his blood. 
Love it. Loved it. Loved it. So sexually appealing. 

Damn.


----------



## lovelygirl

jaquen said:


> That's wonderful.
> 
> But it doesn't line up with the sentiments in your original post, which start off with the notion that men who pay for you, and other women, are the ones who really know how to treat a woman.
> 
> Your post absolutely made it clear that you're willing to pay. I suppose my question is, *if a man doesn't pay, does that affect how you see him in any negative way at all?*


I know the question is not for me but I'll answer anyway. 
If he doensn't pay only a few times, it wouldn't affect me towards him. But if he counts the times he pays and excepts me to pay one time yes, one time no..., then yes...it'd totally affect me as it'd make me think that he's calculating who pays more and who pays less. That'd turn me off.

No matter how much the woman is independent and rich..., she'll always want a strong and supportive man by her side - either mentally and/or financially.


----------



## Herschel

Lol, chivalry. There are so many moving parts and subtext to this whole debate, it gets to be absurd.

I hate the term gentleman, like, a gentleman opens a car door or holds open doors for his lady. That guy sounds like a **** to me. I’m a good guy, and I hold doors open for everyone, not just my lady. And if she is in front of me, and doesn’t open and hold the door open then gtfoohwts. 

Regarding paying? I think when a woman pays, it emasculate a guy. If it’s a first date and nothing comes from it and she feels the need to split, whatever. But plenty of women will say, if you make her split, then no second date. I think a lot of it comes down to spending money to get laid. Maybe it’s subconscious, but we keep on shelling out the bucks til you spread your legs. 

Given the circumstances of life, and how many of us are, especially on this board, I am not so sure her money should mean more to her than my money should mean to me. I spend most of my money on my kids, so, it ends up coming out of their proverbial pockets. Maybe this creates a larger issue where women expect men to pay, and when they get married, she spends her money freely while he is expected to pay the bills and they start to have financial issues. 

If you make more than her, pay more. If she makes as much as you or more, let her pay equally. Just bring more to the relationship than just money and financial security.


----------



## EllisRedding

OK, so here is an interesting spin from one of the radio programs I listen to. Guy/Gal go out on a date at Applebees (her suggestion since it was close to her job). Everything goes well, and when the check comes he pays using AppleBees gift cards. Apparently this was enough of a turn off for her that she ghosted him. His rationale, he had several gift cards sitting around, rarely ever goes to Applebees, so figured this would be a great opportunity to use them up.

So in this case, not only was he expected to pay, but HOW he paid was just as important...


----------



## NextTimeAround

EllisRedding said:


> OK, so here is an interesting spin from one of the radio programs I listen to. Guy/Gal go out on a date at Applebees (her suggestion since it was close to her job). Everything goes well, and when the check comes he pays using AppleBees gift cards. Apparently this was enough of a turn off for her that she ghosted him. His rationale, he had several gift cards sitting around, rarely ever goes to Applebees, so figured this would be a great opportunity to use them up.
> 
> So in this case, not only was he expected to pay, but HOW he paid was just as important...


How did the guy learn that that was the reason she "ghosted" him.


----------



## EllisRedding

NextTimeAround said:


> How did the guy learn that that was the reason she "ghosted" him.


It was a radio segment called Blown Off (he contacted radio station). The radio station got in touch with her after ghosting him for 2 weeks. On the radio show is when she said it was b/c he paid with gift cards.


----------



## Holdingontoit

The guy is extremely fortunate and well rid of her. He should call up everyone who ever gave him an Appleby's gift card and thank them for saving him from oblivion.

Remember, sometimes God pops a hole in your tire at home not to make you late for work but so your tire doesn't pop going over train tracks and get you stuck, smashed and maybe killed. At least you only had to replace the tire and not the whole car.


----------



## lovelygirl

Herschel said:


> Lol, chivalry. There are so many moving parts and subtext to this whole debate, it gets to be absurd.
> 
> I hate the term gentleman, like, a gentleman opens a car door or holds open doors for his lady. That guy sounds like a **** to me. I’m a good guy, and I hold doors open for everyone, not just my lady. And if she is in front of me, and doesn’t open and hold the door open then gtfoohwts.


You are so wrong...like you have no idea.

He was a gentleman who'd open the door for me and hold the chair for me...but he had a STRONG personality and a firm attitude.
I'll post a thread a bit later to give the details..

And by the way...the gentleman guy for whom you make fun of for using chivlary around me..dumped me. OK? 
So yeah..


----------



## Wolf1974

EllisRedding said:


> OK, so here is an interesting spin from one of the radio programs I listen to. Guy/Gal go out on a date at Applebees (her suggestion since it was close to her job). Everything goes well, and when the check comes he pays using AppleBees gift cards. Apparently this was enough of a turn off for her that she ghosted him. His rationale, he had several gift cards sitting around, rarely ever goes to Applebees, so figured this would be a great opportunity to use them up.
> 
> So in this case, not only was he expected to pay, but HOW he paid was just as important...


Dude dodged a land mine my opinion


----------



## chillymorn69

Old school, the man should pay!

And the women should be appreciative.

Along thoses lines a woman should only say yes to a date only if she is attracted to him.

If shes just saying yes because hes a nice guy then they both would be better off if she said no thanks.


----------



## Herschel

lovelygirl said:


> You are so wrong...like you have no idea.
> 
> He was a gentleman who'd open the door for me and hold the chair for me...but he had a STRONG personality and a firm attitude.
> I'll post a thread a bit later to give the details..
> 
> And by the way...the gentleman guy for whom you make fun of for using chivlary around me..dumped me. OK?
> So yeah..


I don’t know what you mean, and I am not making fun of anyone. I wasn’t even referring to you, though that may have been vague since I did laugh at chivalry (I was laughing at the term).

My point is that being a gentleman is disingenuous and tends to lead to just trying to get into your pants. You want to know what kind of guy you have? Don’t pay attention to how he treats you on your date, pay attention to how he treats others.


----------



## Ynot

I don't mind paying for dates I initiate. But I do like being taken care of once in a while myself. The woman I am dating now will always offer to leave the tip or pick up the tab herself. Last weekend was my birthday. She took me out and spoiled me. I loved it. OTOH the last woman, never bothered to leave a tip or pick up a tab. She had no problem complaining about the service or a weak drink or whatever else she disliked. She was an entitled princess who would sit in her seat until the car door was opened for her. I didn't realize it at first but over time the pattern became obvious. Needless to say we parted company. one of the issues I had with my ex was that she would offer to pay but then when the check came she wouldn't have any money and I would still end up paying.


----------



## Chuck71

Ynot said:


> I don't mind paying for dates I initiate. But I do like being taken care of once in a while myself. The woman I am dating now will always offer to leave the tip or pick up the tab herself. Last weekend was my birthday. She took me out and spoiled me. I loved it. OTOH the last woman, never bothered to leave a tip or pick up a tab. She had no problem complaining about the service or a weak drink or whatever else she disliked.* She was an entitled princess who would sit in her seat until the car door was opened for her.* I didn't realize it at first but over time the pattern became obvious. Needless to say we parted company. one of the issues I had with my ex was that she would offer to pay but then when the check came she wouldn't have any money and I would still end up paying.


Should have went on in...... The time it took her to finally come in (if at all) would be a great

definition of her character.


----------



## Ynot

Chuck71 said:


> Should have went on in...... The time it took her to finally come in (if at all) would be a great
> 
> definition of her character.


I tend to open doors, most times, women would already be half way out the door, but I noticed this one would just sit there waiting as if it was beneath her to open a car door herself.


----------



## Lila

Herschel said:


> My point is that being a gentleman is disingenuous and tends to lead to just trying to get into your pants. You want to know what kind of guy you have? Don’t pay attention to how he treats you on your date, pay attention to how he treats others.


Chivalry is just one category on which women judge her dates. A smart woman will observe how he treats her, AND how he treats others, AND probably a hundred other things (some silly, some not) before deciding whether she likes the guy or not. 


---------------------------------------------------
As for who pays, I won't lie, I always found it a huge turn off when my date didn't immediately jump on the bill. Not to say that it was an automatic 'next' but it was definitely a negative that required lots of other great qualities to overcome. 

In my defense, if I liked the guy and we were having a good date, I always offered to pay for after-dinner drinks and/or dessert at my favorite late night cafe.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding

Holdingontoit said:


> The guy is extremely fortunate and well rid of her. He should call up everyone who ever gave him an Appleby's gift card and thank them for saving him from oblivion.
> 
> Remember, sometimes God pops a hole in your tire at home not to make you late for work but so your tire doesn't pop going over train tracks and get you stuck, smashed and maybe killed. At least you only had to replace the tire and not the whole car.


Yeah, I was actually thinking this could be a great first date test for someone. Funny enough, the female kept insisting she wasn't spoiled/entitled but with the same breathe argued that he knew it was a first date and should have paid with his "own cash"


----------



## lovelygirl

Lila said:


> Chivalry is just one category on which women judge her dates. A smart woman will observe how *he treats her, AND how he treats others, AND probably a hundred other things *(some silly, some not) before deciding whether she likes the guy or not.


Exactly. Chivalry is not always fake and a smart one can sense when it's just for the sake of getting laid and when it's rooted in the guy's blood.


----------



## Herschel

Lila said:


> Chivalry is just one category on which women judge her dates. A smart woman will observe how he treats her, AND how he treats others, AND probably a hundred other things (some silly, some not) before deciding whether she likes the guy or not.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> As for who pays, I won't lie, I always found it a huge turn off when my date didn't immediately jump on the bill. Not to say that it was an automatic 'next' but it was definitely a negative that required lots of other great qualities to overcome.
> 
> In my defense, if I liked the guy and we were having a good date, I always offered to pay for after-dinner drinks and/or dessert at my favorite late night cafe.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


If me not plopping down $50 means it’s a huge turnoff for you, then you absolutely aren’t the woman I’d want to date.


----------



## Lila

Herschel said:


> If me not plopping down $50 means it’s a huge turnoff for you, then you absolutely aren’t the woman I’d want to date.


Probably not but then that would be a good thing. We wouldn't waste each other's time. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

Wow, people make this so complicated. My suggestions

1). Only take takes to restaurants priced in a range where you don't care who pays. If you are trying to show off your wealth by paying for food, you don't have enough wealth to be interesting. 

2). When the check arrives quietly slip your credit card in it and hand it back to the waiter. If your date offers to pay half, then politely accept. If they don't offer then politely accept. 

2b: as long as the total is reasonable, don't waste time adding it up. An argument over a check (even if you are right) has no place on a date. 

2b: If your date grabbed the check before you could, offer to split. Accept either yes or no politely. 

3). Regardless of who paid what, thank them for the really nice company over dinner.


----------



## Wolf1974

Well I am still a big believer in first dates should be free or very very inexpensive. I always liked a coffee date or just a couple beers to see if we even have a connection. It also shouldn’t be a big commitment of time. I have had enough first dates to know that I don’t want to spend that long with some of the women I have met...holy cow

After a relationship is established you find your balance in who pays for what I think


----------



## Don't Panic

EllisRedding said:


> It was a radio segment called Blown Off (he contacted radio station). The radio station got in touch with her after ghosting him for 2 weeks. On the radio show is when *she said it was b/c he paid with gift cards.*


*
*
A generous, sensible, practical guy? Liked and loved enough by others to have been bestowed with several gift cards? He paid for their casual first date to the place SHE suggested...that he used up his gift cards would honestly have been a bonus in my eyes. 
I'd have found all those qualities attractive back in my college dating days. But then again, I was a generous, sensible, practical kinda gal who appreciated (and married) a guy who paid without hesitation or reservation. 
She did him a favor ghosting him.


----------



## Chuck71

Wolf1974 said:


> Well I am still a big believer in first dates should be free or very very inexpensive. I always liked a coffee date or just a couple beers to see if we even have a connection. It also shouldn’t be a big commitment of time. I have had enough first dates to know that I don’t want to spend that long with some of the women I have met...holy cow
> 
> After a relationship is established you find your balance in who pays for what I think


Or just write her a check for $50 and talk in the parking lot! All this comes down to is some people

wanting equal rights..... then expect "chill-vry" in the same breath. As with most guys.... they ask

"Which one ya want, cause ya can't have both"


----------



## Herschel

I think this whole “chilverous” personality leads to “nice guy” syndrome. Someone a woman can walk all over and expect thatbhe takes care of her. Having any focus on money with respect to someone you may want to spend your life with equates to bad priorities by you.


----------



## 482

lovelygirl said:


> I friend of mine, 35 y.o. is single and hasn't been in a realtionship for 3 years now. During one of our discussions, she said "I don't need just a guy in my life... I need a man. But where are men today? To even think that they can't even pay you a dinner? _A real man wouldn't allow me to pay for the dinner, even if I insisted on doing so..._".
> 
> This got me thinking if men here agree with this saying or not.
> 
> Do you think you should pay most of the time or you dislike it when you're the one paying most of/all the time?
> Would you prefer she paid most of the time?
> or you think both partners should take turns?
> Is there any difference if you're at the early stages of dating/relationship ?
> 
> I will say my opinion later.


I old school on this one. I will pay until we share a bank account. She tries to pay all the time. Sometimes she is successful if I'm in the bathroom or something. If not I pay.


----------



## marriageontherocks2

Knowing that she's probably dating 8 other guys and I'm just one of her spinning plates, I would insist on splitting the bill. I'm not dropping a lot of money on dinners and whatnot until we've been dating many months and are exclusive.


----------



## toblerone

EllisRedding said:


> OK, so here is an interesting spin from one of the radio programs I listen to. Guy/Gal go out on a date at Applebees (her suggestion since it was close to her job). Everything goes well, and when the check comes he pays using AppleBees gift cards. Apparently this was enough of a turn off for her that she ghosted him. His rationale, he had several gift cards sitting around, rarely ever goes to Applebees, so figured this would be a great opportunity to use them up.
> 
> So in this case, not only was he expected to pay, but HOW he paid was just as important...


On one hand, you have to consider that some radio program isn't above staging something to get people to listen.

On the other hand, you have to consider that most men can't handle "I just don't like you" so women have been conditioned to make up any excuse, no matter how absurd.


----------



## uhtred

But surely the pleasant company of a woman over dinner is well worth the cost of the dinner? 





marriageontherocks2 said:


> Knowing that she's probably dating 8 other guys and I'm just one of her spinning plates, I would insist on splitting the bill. I'm not dropping a lot of money on dinners and whatnot until we've been dating many months and are exclusive.


----------



## marriageontherocks2

uhtred said:


> But surely the pleasant company of a woman over dinner is well worth the cost of the dinner?


There are many women out there who play the online dating game via Tinder and literally have a stable of orbiters they ping just for the free food. I would never want to be that guy. It's a different time now, the old ways don't fit into modern dating, you'll just be taken advantage of.


----------



## leon2100

This reminds of an incident that got me in trouble with my wife. We had gone to a fine restaurant and sitting across the room was this young couple holding hands. As she got up to go the the ladies room, he stood and they embraced. when she came back he stood and they embraced again. I made an observation to my wife:

Me: "they're not married."
Wife: "I agree."
Me: "He's going to get laid to night."
Wife: "He wishes"
Me (and here is where I should have kept quiet, but my lips started moving even though my brain was telling them to stay silent.) I said: "He better... He paid for it!"
Wife: ______________ DEAD SILENCE 
Guess who didn't get laid that night.

Oh, I've got a lot more dumb things I've said in 52 yrs... but this one taught me a BIG lesson.


----------



## lovelygirl

482 said:


> I old school on this one. I will pay until we share a bank account. She tries to pay all the time. Sometimes she is successful if I'm in the bathroom or something. If not I pay.


Love this attitude. You know she's willing to pay, yet you're the one who does.

Speaking of men taking charge... >


----------



## uhtred

I guess I see it differently

I remember once hanging out in the back of a 747 on a long international flight, chatting with people. One young woman I was talking to was on her way to Rome to visit her husband who was stationed overseas. It was clear that she didn't travel much, seemed overwhelmed and didn't know what she was going to do at the airport and didn't have much cash on her.

I handed her 50euro for taxi fare, and when we got off the plane I kept an eye on her to make sure she got through immigration OK and was heading in the right direction. 

Talking with her had helped pass the time on yet another long boring flight. I probably made someone's life a little easier. I've never missed the 50e. I'm aware that it might have been a careful setup - but probably not - taking a $1000 flight to weasel $50 from someone doesn't make sense, so I think it was legit.


The point is, I've never regretted spending a little money to make someones day better. Maybe people take advantage of me sometimes. That's OK. 












marriageontherocks2 said:


> There are many women out there who play the online dating game via Tinder and literally have a stable of orbiters they ping just for the free food. I would never want to be that guy. It's a different time now, the old ways don't fit into modern dating, you'll just be taken advantage of.


----------



## Herschel

uhtred said:


> But surely the pleasant company of a woman over dinner is well worth the cost of the dinner?


What about my pleasant company? I assure you, she is likely having more fun because of me than I am because of her...


----------



## Personal

uhtred said:


> But surely the pleasant company of a woman over dinner is well worth the cost of the dinner?


Pleasant indeed, perhaps that's why most of the women who asked me out on dates paid. Or maybe they were just trying to get into my pants.


----------



## MrsHolland

Herschel said:


> I don’t know what you mean, and I am not making fun of anyone. I wasn’t even referring to you, though that may have been vague since I did laugh at chivalry (I was laughing at the term).
> 
> *My point is that being a gentleman is disingenuous and tends to lead to just trying to get into your pants. You want to know what kind of guy you have? Don’t pay attention to how he treats you on your date, pay attention to how he treats others.*


IME it is not disingenuous to be a gentleman unless the man himself is disingenuous. I adore and have always been surrounded (post idiotic teen years) by genuine, gentlemen and I have to say it still impresses me. Not to say a rough guy cannot be genuine also but it is not prudent to judge a man simply because he is a gentleman. 

As the saying goes "I want a gentleman in the streets and a freak in the bed".


----------



## Herschel

MrsHolland said:


> IME it is not disingenuous to be a gentleman unless the man himself is disingenuous. I adore and have always been surrounded (post idiotic teen years) by genuine, gentlemen and I have to say it still impresses me. Not to say a rough guy cannot be genuine also but it is not prudent to judge a man simply because he is a gentleman.
> 
> As the saying goes "I want a gentleman in the streets and a freak in the bed".


Two things. My point of being a gentleman being disingenuous is that it is a subset of being a good person. What does a gentleman do that a good person doesn't? Except, he focuses it mostly on his woman...to? Impress her? Raise good people. Gentlemen are just trying to impress ladies.

Second, I believe the saying ends with "sheets", thus, making it a rhyme.


----------



## MrsHolland

Herschel said:


> Two things. My point of being a gentleman being disingenuous is that it is a subset of being a good person. What does a gentleman do that a good person doesn't? Except, he focuses it mostly on his woman...to? Impress her? Raise good people. Gentlemen are just trying to impress ladies.
> 
> Second, I believe the saying ends with "sheets", thus, making it a rhyme.


Actually I know men that are good men but would not be classed as gentlemen. Gentlemen are not just trying to impress ladies, disingenuous men are doing that.

My dad and brothers are gentlemen, I'm pretty sure they are not doing it to impress me >


----------



## uhtred

Fair enough, but consider my company beyond price, so having someone pay for it would just be insulting:grin2:

Seriously though - *I just don't care*. If you are going to the right restaurant, its not enough money to worry about. 



Herschel said:


> What about my pleasant company? I assure you, she is likely having more fun because of me than I am because of her...


----------



## uhtred

Can I buy you dinner...:grin2:




MrsHolland said:


> IME it is not disingenuous to be a gentleman unless the man himself is disingenuous. I adore and have always been surrounded (post idiotic teen years) by genuine, gentlemen and I have to say it still impresses me. Not to say a rough guy cannot be genuine also but it is not prudent to judge a man simply because he is a gentleman.
> 
> As the saying goes "I want a gentleman in the streets and a freak in the bed".


----------



## MrsHolland

uhtred said:


> Can I buy you dinner...:grin2:


Plus the airfare?

Have had some really great dinners in the US, looking forward to my next trip over.


----------



## Personal

I don't get why who pays for a date is such a controversial thing. As a general guide whoever does the asking out regardless of their gender normally pays for that date.


----------



## samyeagar

Personal said:


> Pleasant indeed, perhaps that's why most of the women who asked me out on dates paid. Or maybe they were just trying to get into my pants.


This has actually been my experience as well. Never worried much about taking a bunch of money to the bars either. Plenty of women loved the chance to buy me drinks.


----------



## uhtred

If I were dating, then for a first date I'd just go to where you are - you probably wouldn't want to get flown half way across the world by a stranger anyway. Second date I'd be happy to take you somewhere interesting. There is a Chinese place I really like in Beijing, or if you like mountains, a great Nepalese place in Chamonix. (the food in Nepal itself is terrible IMHO, not recommended). 


Its not that I'm super wealthy - its that I'm happy to spend money to have interesting experiences. Even without a good romantic connection, exploring a new place with someone is a lot of fun. What do you like? Bora Bora? The great migration in the Serengeti? Rome? Norangs Fjord? The ice lantern festival in Harbin?


Sadly though I'm not dating. I *do* go with my wife to all these places and more, and we have a really great time. Unfortunately the lack of sex puts a damper on the experience - makes what should be wonderful and romantic feel like a trip with a friend. That's OK, but not as good as when there is real romance as well. 








MrsHolland said:


> Plus the airfare?
> 
> Have had some really great dinners in the US, looking forward to my next trip over.


----------



## Notself

Personal said:


> I don't get why who pays for a date is such a controversial thing. As a general guide whoever does the asking out regardless of their gender normally pays for that date.


The issue is that 95% of the time is it the man who does the asking, therefore 95% of the time the man is doing the paying.

When I was poor in the big city, I could only go on cheap dates, which I'm sure led to more than one woman never calling me back. 

I don't know if the younger generation is more equal when it comes to asking each other out on dates ... do people still date at all, actually? Or is it one big Tinder hookup out there?


----------



## MrsHolland

uhtred said:


> If I were dating, then for a first date I'd just go to where you are - you probably wouldn't want to get flown half way across the world by a stranger anyway. Second date I'd be happy to take you somewhere interesting. There is a Chinese place I really like in Beijing, or if you like mountains, a great Nepalese place in Chamonix. (the food in Nepal itself is terrible IMHO, not recommended).
> 
> 
> Its not that I'm super wealthy - its that I'm happy to spend money to have interesting experiences. Even without a good romantic connection, exploring a new place with someone is a lot of fun. What do you like? Bora Bora? The great migration in the Serengeti? Rome? Norangs Fjord? The ice lantern festival in Harbin?
> 
> 
> *Sadly though I'm not dating. I *do* go with my wife to all these places and more, and we have a really great time. Unfortunately the lack of sex puts a damper on the experience - makes what should be wonderful and romantic feel like a trip with a friend. That's OK, but not as good as when there is real romance as well.*


Which is the really sad part of your story. There is nowhere lonelier than being lonely in a marriage. Wishing you better for the future.


----------



## 269370

MrsHolland said:


> As the saying goes "I want a gentleman in the streets and a freak in the bed".


Wish I had known this earlier...Always been a gentle man in bed and a freak on the streets instead


----------



## 269370

uhtred said:


> Sadly though I'm not dating. I *do* go with my wife to all these places and more, and we have a really great time. Unfortunately the lack of sex puts a damper on the experience -


How would you be eating in all those restaurants while simultaneously having sex to enhance the experience though?? :scratchhead:
I would probably get a stitch if I was eating Nepalese food while thrusting vigorously at the same time. :moon:


----------



## uhtred

It is sad. I see other couples walking holding hands, kissing, showing various signs of physical affection. 

Its not all about sex, but without sexual interest there is little to differentiate between friendship and love. 




MrsHolland said:


> Which is the really sad part of your story. There is nowhere lonelier than being lonely in a marriage. Wishing you better for the future.


----------



## MrsHolland

inmyprime said:


> How would you be eating in all those restaurants while simultaneously having sex to enhance the experience though?? :scratchhead:
> I would probably get a stitch if I was eating Nepalese food while thrusting vigorously at the same time. :moon:


Not a Seinfeld fan? George had it all worked out to incorporate food and sex together. Not in a public restaurant though >


----------



## 269370

MrsHolland said:


> Not a Seinfeld fan? George had it all worked out to incorporate food and sex together. Not in a public restaurant though >


Yes I remember the episode when he was watching foodball, while eating a sandwich while having sex  Classic!


----------



## 269370

Oops, football not 'foodball'


----------



## uhtred

Sort of like trying to figure out how many "deadly sins" you can commit simultaneously. Fitting in "sloth" is always tough since you are working so hard at the others. 



inmyprime said:


> Yes I remember the episode when he was watching foodball, while eating a sandwich while having sex  Classic!


----------



## TX-SC

The person who asks should pay. However, here in the southern USA, most people assume the man will pay regardless. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Francis Brant

It's a bit of a test. For her. If the girl is expecting that you will pay the bill and at the same time actively promotes toxic feminism - this is hypocrisy.
It's thinking at the level of the type: "My money is my money, and your money is our money"


----------

