Men should pay for dates meals.

[carhill]

This is the essence of a good match I've found, by marrying an otherwise good person who's a bad match, that there is no reasonable way to reconcile this. I guess that's my "baggage"

[flc]

I

As a gentleman, if I ask a woman on a date, I pay. It's that simple. I'm also OK with going Dutch. If she asks me on a date, then I can see where letting her pay is OK too. I'm kind of old school when it comes to dating but that is how I was raised. I don't see it as buying her company. I see it as COURTING.

 

This is my view as well. We are both having a good time, I asked her out, so why shouldn't I pay?

[CaliGuy]

Totally with you on this, Cali.

 

I have refused to date someone a second time simply because he didn't have the courtesy to pay.

 

I guess I am still a romantic at heart and want to be treated like a lady.

 

And I want to date a lady -- someone who appreciates me being a chivalrous gentleman.

 

This is my view as well. We are both having a good time, I asked her out, so why shouldn't I pay?

 

Exactly!

[The Collector]

It's not buying a women's company. I don't view it that way at all. I don't think there are many women who would go out with a man just to have a meal,LOL!!

 

My take is that it is the person who does the asking who should pay. Especially at the beginning of dating. After that, I suppose it goes back and forth.

 

I have noticed that people who are generous with their money are usually very generous with their feelings, too. They know how to give. Someone with crabs in his/her pockets is, well, stingy with everything.

 

You may not view it a buying a woman's company, because that would make you feel bad. At the risk of a prostitute comparison, they too could say they are not being 'bought' - it's traditional, or they like feeling special, but as long as there is a suggestion or understanding, as has been made plenty of times in this thread and exists in the dating world, that not paying = no sex for you, it's a form of bartering.

 

As has been pointed out endlessly, women very rarely ask a man out. So the 'who asks, pays' logic means men pay 99% of the time. And nobody has a gun to the woman's head, she wants to spend time with the man, two people are agreeing to spend some time with each other and see what happens. No reason for one to pay for the other, just as when two women meet the one who invited the other doesn't feel any obligation to pay for the other.

 

Again the idea of 'generosity' and what the lack of it means. How is a woman exempt from this logic? She is the one being ungenerous and cheap by expecting the man to pay. Why doesn't she have to prove she 'knows how to give'?

 

The idea of chivalry and being a gentleman all sounds very nice. But a. women say they want this, then bang the bad boy, or at least a man who isn't too desperate to please, which is how much 'chivalrous' behaviour is often read by women, unfortunately. b. A man can be all about protecting you and doing nice things for you, once you have proved you are worth it, and that it's a reciprocal arrangement. Not just because you have a pretty face, or he is unable to score without throwing money at the woman.

 

As I've said before, most of this is moot because I'd strongly advise men to avoid a dinner date as a first date anyway. Women don't respect or find attractive men who try to impress them with their spending power, especially when they've done nothing to earn it. Unless a fat wallet is their priority, in which case I'm not interested.

 

Let me be clear, cheapness is a major irritant to me. I hate people who are 'careful' with their money, and I'm not one of them. But much as some of you women try to glue the cheapskate accusation to a shaming tactic of being unchivalrous and a threat of no action, this is not about cash it's about principle. You are not a special little princess who's time is more valuable than a man's. And it is the women who can't bring themselves to pay half the price of the meal and drinks they just had who are the cheap ones.

[vonerik012]

It's not buying a women's company. I don't view it that way at all. I don't think there are many women who would go out with a man just to have a meal,LOL!!

 

My take is that it is the person who does the asking who should pay. Especially at the beginning of dating. After that, I suppose it goes back and forth.

 

I have noticed that people who are generous with their money are usually very generous with their feelings, too. They know how to give. Someone with crabs in his/her pockets is, well, stingy with everything.

 

LOL, and the above only applies to men????

 

I have noticed the exact same thing, and this is my point..

 

I have dated women WHO COULD NOT CARE LESS about who pays for anything, ever. They had more girlfriends, were more successful, and much better company.

 

I dated women who felt "The man always pays", and they were always the drama queens, who hated other women, who had no friends, a crappy job, and only sex too offer.

 

But for some reason, a man is "cheap" if he is not paying for you! But you are not cheap, if you are not even paying for yourself, lol. And you just expect it!

[marlena]

She is the one being ungenerous and cheap by expecting the man to pay. Why doesn't she have to prove she 'knows how to give'?

 

I meant a first date or the first few dates. After that, I would most definitely invite him out to dinner and pay. Once and if a relationship is established, of course, it's only fair to take turns. I wouldn't expect him to always pay. I would never go dutch. I don't like that feeling at all. Either one or the other.

 

But a. women say they want this, then bang the bad boy, or at least a man who isn't too desperate to please, which is how much 'chivalrous' behaviour is often read by women, unfortunately.

 

Is this your opinion of all women? Why would you think ALL women are like this. I am sure that there are some who fit this slot but the world is also peopled by mature,intelligent, considerate women who know how to appreciate a good man.

[vonerik012]

 

The idea of chivalry and being a gentleman all sounds very nice. But a. women say they want this, then bang the bad boy, or at least a man who isn't too desperate to please, which is how much 'chivalrous' behaviour is often read by women, unfortunately.

 

 

LOL,, This is SO true.... I have known more than a few women whom have done this exact thing...

 

I have known women whom ARE 100% "All about the man paying! Being a gentleman! They must be able to pay!"

 

Then, they end up falling for a complete USER, and LOSER who actually lives off them, cheats on them, steals their money, and the women are just SO in love that they are simply happy to be with them.

 

I know of one girl in a situation like that, who went from believing a man should always pay, to then dating a complete user and planning their future together by wanting to share her inheritance with him, so he will not have to work, and they can just be together.

 

Bring a girl roses or small gifts, pay for them, take them out, treat them well, be attentive, and they will soon become "bored". Then you would be whipped, weak and pathetic, so they have to seek out that man who does not care for them at all, that they also have to pay for.

[The Collector]

I meant a first date or the first few dates. After that, I would most definitely invite him out to dinner and pay. Once and if a relationship is established, of course, it's only fair to take turns. I wouldn't expect him to always pay. I would never go dutch. I don't like that feeling at all. Either one or the other.

That's nice, but why are the early dates exempt? Many men never get past a first or second date, and there are many female serial daters just looking for free meals, attention, or just screening a never ending supply of men that will never meet up to their expectations. These men, unlucky in love as they may be, shouldn't have to be unlucky in the wallet as well. Of course many men will defend their right to pay, as they think it will work, and are encouraged/shamed by women into continuing and afraid to upset the women whose approval they think is crucial.

Is this your opinion of all women? Why would you think ALL women are like this. I am sure that there are some who fit this slot but the world is also peopled by mature,intelligent, considerate women who know how to appreciate a good man.

Damn, I knew I should have remember to put in a '(many)'. Of course there are plenty of women like vonerik mentioned, who couldn't care less about who pays, or like the early, very sensible female poster in this thread who understands it's not fair, paternalistic and counter to women's claims for equality, and are interested in more important things.

[2sure]

Collector -

 

Having been one of the women who did in fact on occassion enjoy a free meal while serial dating, I understand your frustration. In my defense, I also enjoyed many less expensive dates just as much.

 

I think the tradition of the guy paying comes from the idea, no matter how out of date (if it is) - that the man is showing he can be a good provider. '

Back in the day, this may have been needed to be known right up front. But now, with roles changing, it isnt necessarily the first thing any one has to prove. Agreed. So, now I guess its just a nice and romantic gesture.

 

It isnt going to change. I DO see your point. You seem like a man who could think of a million funner things to do than go to dinner.

[vonerik012]

2sure...

 

 

Is it really romantic? How? If a girl is not into you, she will not be because you spent money on a dinner. If it is just "expected" of all men, that does not seem like romance either. Especially if he is just doing it because he has to. Seems like more of an obligation than a romantic gesture.

[norajane]

2sure...

 

 

Is it really romantic? How? If a girl is not into you, she will not be because you spent money on a dinner. If it is just "expected" of all men, that does not seem like romance either. Especially if he is just doing it because he has to. Seems like more of an obligation than a romantic gesture.

 

I think this is the key to the whole thing.

 

Women want men to want to treat us when they ask us out - it makes us feel special. Just as men want women to appreciate the gesture. That's what makes it romantic, that's what makes it courtship - the desire.

 

If men see that a woman expects it as their due, and women can see that a man is only doing it because he feels obligated, it doesn't work for either of them. The romance is taken out of the equation when the gesture is not given freely, or accepted with appreciation.

[Trialbyfire]

I don't think anyone will change their minds about where they stand on this issue. The men who don't want to pay, shouldn't pay. Of course there will be consequences to their actions with certain women.

 

Same goes for women who feel their date should pay. They can assume the guy will pay and if he doesn't, he's toast.

 

When two individuals agree on the issue, they'll potentially connect, since first impressions are so important for the possibility of second dates.

[bish]

I was thinking the other day about how (some) women seem to hold the belief that men should pay for dates. That a man is not worthy of dating unless he pays for the meal.

 

I don't mind paying and prefer to pay. I think its the right thing to do, especially if I asked her out.

 

What I don't want is a woman that has a sense of entitlement and expects me to pay for everything. I don't bother with women like that.

[2sure]

Agreed. Dinner is not going to buy romantic feelings. The tradition is romantic.

 

Buying dinner doesnt guarantee romance any more than it does sex, of course. Likewise, eating the dinner.

 

To be honest, even when I was enjoying being wined and dined - I don't feel I took advantage of anyone. It really seemed to me that the men I was dating preferred to pay for dinner. If I had some inkling that a man was going beyond his budget simply to impress me - I would either decline or suggest another kind of date.

[Taramere]

To be honest, even when I was enjoying being wined and dined - I don't feel I took advantage of anyone. It really seemed to me that the men I was dating preferred to pay for dinner. If I had some inkling that a man was going beyond his budget simply to impress me - I would either decline or suggest another kind of date.

 

That seems the best way. I agree with others who say that a meal is a bit unnecessary for a first date. Where I live, it's perfectly normal to just meet up for a few drinks - and because you pay for each round at the bar rather than putting it on a tab, it tends to be split down the middle.

 

Plus there are better, more imaginative ways (as you pointed out in your previous post) of spending time getting to know someone than going out for a meal. When I lived in London, I used to visit the Tate every couple of weeks with this guy. I was a member, so it didn't cost anything at all. Even if there isn't a new exhibition on, it's always fun to people watch (as well as look at art) in these places. Or going cycling, or doing some other kind of sport together.

 

You get to know people in those natural, relaxed settings in a way that you don't get to know them by just sitting in a crowded restaurant or pub talking to them. Plus, he gets to see you looking your worst (dressed down, no make up), and if he still likes you after that then it feels more genuine.

[marlena]

That's nice, but why are the early dates exempt? Many men never get past a first or second date, and there are many female serial daters just looking for free meals, attention, or just screening a never ending supply of men that will never meet up to their expectations.

 

 

Oh, I see where you are going with this.

 

I don't like serial daters,male or female, so I guess I wouldn't know what the protocol calls for in such a situation. Of course, if a man is serial dater, I can understand how he would worry about paying. He'd be broke in no time flat if he suscribed to "the man should pay" idea.

 

Serial dating is I guess more of an American past time. People don't do it here or maybe just a few online daters do. What usually happens is a man meets a woman, gets to know her a bit and then asks her out for a date. It is almost a given that since he asked her out, he will pay. They don't mind at all.

[solo_flyer]

Today, women expect a man to pay for dinner when out on a date. I've read a few opinions on here that a man who doesn't pay isn't worth dating anymore. So how do you feel about it?

I really don't have any issues with this. If a woman says she expects the man to pay, I tell her I don't have a problem with that because it's why men make more money than women.

[djhall]

Women want men to want to treat us when they ask us out - it makes us feel special. Just as men want women to appreciate the gesture. That's what makes it romantic, that's what makes it courtship - the desire.

 

If men see that a woman expects it as their due, and women can see that a man is only doing it because he feels obligated, it doesn't work for either of them. The romance is taken out of the equation when the gesture is not given freely, or accepted with appreciation.

How can it be special if it is expected in advance? If it is expected that the man will pay, there isn't anything special or nice about it, it is just another "basic" expectation to check off on a date like taking a shower and putting on deodorant. Which is the whole point, the man paying is no longer generous or special, it is just forking over the cash to prove he isn't too cheap or socially inept to date. Once again, most of the men who are protesting being expected to pay are also pointing out that they don't usually mind paying for the date when they aren't expected to because then it is a voluntary expression of generosity and not just a standard date duty. Again, guys have repeatedly pointed out that it is the sense of being entitled to have them pay that they object to. How is it special if you feel entitled to have him pay?

[vonerik012]

As for myself...

 

If I am on the first few dates, and of the below 2 situations...

 

A. The woman never even thinks of paying..or

 

B. The woman sincerely,(key word sincerely,), offers with a smile, says it is no problem, and really wants to chip in...Maybe she even buys a round of drinks.. Just buying 1 round would speak volumes about her.

 

Chances are, B is a better long term catch. Yes, B is rare. But I would never have any thoughts in the back of my mind that this woman is one of those who will never offer to pay for anything. Thus I am completely relaxed, and we can get to know each other, instead of worrying about money, who pays, etc.

 

It does suck once you get past the initial stages with a woman, 3-5-7 dates, and then you realize she is the type who will NEVER part with a dime she makes, and she expects men to pay for everything.. (there are many women, from all walks of life, EXACTLY like this)You might already be having sex with her, seeing her more often, becoming more interested, and THEN realize she is flat out cheap, entitled, broke, or selfish.

[Cherry Blossom 35]

As for myself...

 

If I am on the first few dates, and of the below 2 situations...

 

A. The woman never even thinks of paying..or

 

B. The woman sincerely,(key word sincerely,), offers with a smile, says it is no problem, and really wants to chip in...Maybe she even buys a round of drinks.. Just buying 1 round would speak volumes about her.

 

Chances are, B is a better long term catch. Yes, B is rare. But I would never have any thoughts in the back of my mind that this woman is one of those who will never offer to pay for anything. Thus I am completely relaxed, and we can get to know each other, instead of worrying about money, who pays, etc.

 

It does suck once you get past the initial stages with a woman, 3-5-7 dates, and then you realize she is the type who will NEVER part with a dime she makes, and she expects men to pay for everything.. (there are many women, from all walks of life, EXACTLY like this)You might already be having sex with her, seeing her more often, becoming more interested, and THEN realize she is flat out cheap, entitled, broke, or selfish.

 

Vonerick, I would like to know where you are meeting these women. The kind in the second paragraph. Seriously. I don't know any women like this. None. Amongst my friends, work contacts, friends of friends. Is this a regional thing? A class thing? What? Honestly, I think it is very strange that a woman, when in a relationship, would continue to expect the man to pay for everything. I'm guessing that these are younger women who do not have very good jobs?

[vonerik012]

Cherry, all types of women have that attitude.. Women with money, without money, educated, not educated.

 

Maybe I date more attractive women, so more attractive women do feel more entitled? I am not sure.

 

Just about any man has dated women like this. This is not a personal issue with me, lol. It is common.. How do you know who pays for what in other peoples relationships? Do they give you a run down of everything?

 

Actually younger women are more free with their money. Just depends on the woman, not the age.

 

They say the EXACT same things some of these women on here (gentlemen pay, courting,if you don't pay for me, you would pay for someone else etc) except they extend it longer. Not all women, but MANY.

 

So, it is nice to meet a woman who sets herself apart from the get go.. Is a round of drinks going to break a woman? Or ruin all the traditional roles? Or make her feel like a man?

[djhall]

I meant a first date or the first few dates. After that, I would most definitely invite him out to dinner and pay. Once and if a relationship is established, of course, it's only fair to take turns.

This feeling has been expressed by several women in this thread, and I'm curious about the thinking behind it. Why differentiate the first few dates and treat them differently? Is there something special about the initial few dates that is unique?

[carhill]

Perhaps this reflects caution on the female's part, investing, first, some of her time, then, gauging interest and compatibility, then some of her money, same-same, then some of her emotion. As with everything, the person who cares the least about the dynamic holds the power card. The man, if he wants an "equal", as far as paying for dates, doesn't have to date that particular woman, regardless of how well they might hit it off. If such is a red flag for him, the balance shifts to his side, at least momentarily. As other males desire the woman's attention, she shifts her focus to them and her power goes back up. Of course, the same dynamic can happen for the male, generally when he is universally attractive or otherwise relationally omnipotent.

[The Collector]

You speak of 'inviting' like it's so formal. Two people get talking, maybe the man approached the woman... at some point the signs are there that they'd like to see each other again, so one, probably the man, says do you want to go out sometime and the girl says yes. Two people have agreed to get together. Both want to be there. The 'invitee' is not doing the 'inviter' any favours are they? They don't need compensating based on who asked who.

[The Collector]

Previous post directed at luv and others who make a big deal about who invites who.