Men should pay for dates meals.

[carhill]

At that price point, it's probably more "cost effective" to hire a call girl for sex and enjoy witty conversation, drinks and dinner with friends who pay their own way

[Walk]

A few dates until a boyfriend/girlfriend thing is established is ...........

 

It only takes 3 dates to become bf/gf? Your time frame seems incredibly short. Maybe I'm just not used to that type of situation, but in my life most people take a few weeks of consistent dating to get to that stage. They like to take the time to get to know who the other person is well enough to know if they want to make a more serious commitment to them. That's hard to tell after only 2 or 3 dates. That's about 6 hours with someone.

[The Collector]

A guy wouldn't be paying $1000 a month on a woman unless he was rich. So if he's stupid and spending out of his means, that's his problem.

Dating doesn't cost that much. A few dates until a boyfriend/girlfriend thing is established is not costing a guy a freaking $1000 a month unless he is choosing to spend that much on her out of his own volition.

You're basically quibbling over a few dates which could be, as I stated before simple coffees and drinks outings, and simple and not exorbitant dinners, as in taking her to the free art museum and local flavor hamburger place. If you have a problem with treating that to a woman you are wanting to date, then you aren't really interested anyway.

 

While I agree that simple coffee and drinks is the way to go, you are ignoring the bit where I said the guy, like many out there, is not finding the woman he clicks with. Many men and women on the dating scene are not getting past the first couple of dates for whatever reason, and much as I deride it, the dinner-date is still a standard practice.

 

Taking that into account, and assuming even this guy doesn't always go to expensive restaurants, to date you or many women, he is going to be picking up the tab for whatever you decide to do. Let's work it out.

 

Say he goes on a couple of dates a week. One is a restaurant date, one is a movie and some drinks. The restaurant bill, with drinks, is $60-150, maybe more. The movie date, with a couple of drinks is roughly $60-$80. He's looking at spending £500 minimum a month at this rate, and if he dates three times a week (and why not?) and he's easily in over $1000.

 

Should he save his money by not dating as much? Possibly, though women such as yourself who expect it all free don't need to worry about that, you can go on five dates a week if you please - so it's not fair. Should he avoid dinner dates and go for more free or cheaper entertainment? YES TOTALLY - but too many men are afraid that if they don't 'treat' a woman she will think he's cheap - and too many women do everything they can to reinforce this 'a gentleman will want to treat me' mentality.

 

I've asked you a couple of times to see it from the man's perspective but you and so many women are unable or unwilling to do that. The status quo suits you, and that's all that matters and all your arguments and reasoning come from that position.

 

And really, this set-up doesn't affect me, I'm not discussing who pays because it affects my wallet, because it doesn't. It really is the logic and fairness of the issue that interests me, and the 'because I'm worth it, men who want to get in my pants should feel lucky to treat me' mentality, and the hypocritical shaming tactics employed by those who seem to see a relationship in terms of 'hooray here come the presents!' that draws my ire.

 

I have yet to hear a persuasive argument for the man paying. And 'tradition' or 'who asks, pays' are definitely not cutting it.

[Tomcat33]

Say he goes on a couple of dates a week. One is a restaurant date, one is a movie and some drinks. The restaurant bill, with drinks, is $60-150, maybe more. The movie date, with a couple of drinks is roughly $60-$80. He's looking at spending £500 minimum a month at this rate, and if he dates three times a week (and why not?) and he's easily in over $1000.

 

Should he save his money by not dating as much? Possibly, though women such as yourself who expect it all free don't need to worry about that, you can go on five dates a week if you please - so it's not fair. Should he avoid dinner dates and go for more free or cheaper entertainment? YES TOTALLY - but too many men are afraid that if they don't 'treat' a woman she will think he's cheap - and too many women do everything they can to reinforce this 'a gentleman will want to treat me' mentality.

 

 

 

Actually you've hit the nail on the head. Stop being a serial dater and you won't have to spend all that cash in one week. I want a guy that is more selective and not desperately out trying to land every chick in town, as I am more selective of the men I date as well so if he is splurging he is not doing this three four times a week. That's a good sign for me.

[scratch]

A $1,000 might be a high estimate. But I know it would be pretty expensive overall, with very little retun in investment. I've gone out with friends and attempted to keep it extremely cheap and I've still spent $60 by the time we were done for the night. I felt it was worthwhile because I enjoyed the company, and I knew my friend would do the same for me. To put that kind of effort and money into someone who won't do the same in return, seems like a crazy notion.

 

If I had to do that 4-8 times a month... I'd start looking for a new hobby. At least, something in which I wouldn't have to worry whether someone else was enjoying themselves or not while I paid for it.

 

I feel, as do many of the women you're criticizing, that men should ask women out, and that men should pay. However, I also feel that men should choose the date activity. A default first date, especially among relative strangers, should be a drink, a walk, or an ice cream cone. Will some women see such an invitation as indicative of my cheapness? Undoubtedly, but that is a risk I am prepared to take as well as an effective screening mechanism. A girl to whom I was highly attracted was let go because, when I asked her to a movie for our second date, she showed up wanting to eat and didn't offer to pay.

 

I'd like for the women here to comment on how they'd feel if a man never asked them to pay, but also didn't spend much money on them.

 

Admittedly, I fall into the trap of being more inclined to spend more on more highly anticipated first dates, usually in the form of tickets to live theater, a sporting event or a comedy club. Deep down, that has less to do with the money and more to do with wanting to be seen as sophisticated and original, but still runs, on average, $200 for an evening. However, it balances out to an extent, in that the next 5 dates average about $25.

 

My patience for men who object to paying as a matter of principle is very limited. Control the situation by choosing the activity and it won't even be an issue. The lesson here, as usual in my posts, is to take responsibility for the things with which you're faced instead of whining about societal ills.

[Adunaphel]

I'd like for the women here to comment on how they'd feel if a man never asked them to pay, but also didn't spend much money on them.

 

I would feel delighted, as I'd appreciate the gesture, I'd feel special, I'd not feel guilty if he insisted to keep paying on the next dates and I could pick the bill or reciprocate in some other ways without spending too much money myself.

[Walk]

The lesson here, as usual in my posts, is to take responsibility for the things with which you're faced instead of whining about societal ills.

 

That's good for you. However, when you felt a woman expected something from you (i.e. food in addition to a movie) you cut her loose. Which was (part of) my point. You demonstrated that you have felt that you are willing to offer up to a certain point... and anything past that will not be tolerated. This is your time, money, and hard work that's making these dates possible for a woman... you honestly think it's fair that at the end of the date she goes home and thinks "Well, I was worth all the money he spent on me, and I expect more of it next week". Does that make you feel special and appreciated? So the only difference to you is that the woman who came with an empty belly expected dinner that night, while the rest expect you to buy dinner the next date. Both expect you to buy it though, 'cause neither believe they should pay for the date.

 

You call it whinning. I call it discussing. If everyone kept silent about how things have always been then no change would have ever been made. No great strides in history. Personally, I think it's important to discuss long held standards to see why those are still in place. Sometimes tradition holds no other function then "it's the way it's always been done". It doesn't mean those are always the best ways to do things.

[The Collector]

Actually you've hit the nail on the head. Stop being a serial dater and you won't have to spend all that cash in one week. I want a guy that is more selective and not desperately out trying to land every chick in town, as I am more selective of the men I date as well so if he is splurging he is not doing this three four times a week. That's a good sign for me.

 

Is it really desperate for a single man (or woman) to go out on two dates a week? My figures weren't based on four times a week btw.

 

Meanwhile a woman can be a serial dater if she chooses, with no financial penalty and with every date being a free meal and drinks (or movie, whatever), a great way to save money. You see the inequality and unfairness, right?

 

Many people enjoy dating, meeting new people, or are really hoping to meet Mr or Ms Right. They might even want to do that over dinner. I'm not judging them on how often they do that, or telling them to keep it down to once a week. The point is why should one pay for the other. And your post has not addressed that.

[Trialbyfire]

walk, every person is shaped by their past experiences. That your past experiences didn't amount to enjoying the traditional style of dating, doesn't make the traditional style of dating, wrong. Not everyone is on a shoestring budget. If people begrudge it, don't do it.

 

I agree with scratch. Quit whining and do something about it, within your own lives. Do whatever works for you and makes you happy within the dating process. The person with compatible concepts and practices, will mesh with you.

[almost famous]

I'm with scratch.

It's about 'who asks, who pays.' If we went to a movie with no plans afterwards, and I wanted to go to dinner, I might suggest "Would you like to have some dinner somewhere?" Then I would be suggesting a place and would be pulling out my wallet when the bill came. If, however, the guy still insisted on paying, which usually a guy who is really attracted and interested does, especially in the early dating stage, I'd let him. I'd say "Really, I'd like to treat." If at that point he still insisted on paying, I'd let him. I'm not going through an argument back and forth about whose paying if it will make this man happy to treat me to dinner even though I suggested it. This is shocking but a lot of men want to pay when dating.

[Walk]

walk, every person is shaped by their past experiences. That your past experiences didn't amount to enjoying the traditional style of dating, doesn't make the traditional style of dating, wrong. Not everyone is on a shoestring budget. If people begrudge it, don't do it.

 

I agree with scratch. Quit whining and do something about it, within your own lives. Do whatever works for you and makes you happy within the dating process. The person with compatible concepts and practices, will mesh with you.

I do (did do) with it what would work for my belief system. In my mind.. this is where it starts, at the first few dates, it sets a precendent for the entire relationship.

 

I still don't understand the expectation thing though. And I don't feel any of the women addressed it. Like The Collector asked. No one answers except to jab insults at the male who won't pay. So I keep commenting.. and no one answers except to tell me I must be a desperate loser who can't get a man to pay, or I'm an alien, or that I don't understand men, or I'm some kind of abnormality that should be erradicated. Instead of answering, they'd rather attack me. Which makes me believe that the reason they expect men to pay is entirely self-serving. That they know this and that's why they can't do anything but attempt to rip me down. As though they need to save face because they can't justify it in a logical fashion.

 

I'm not asking for the impossible. But obviously it is because no one has been able to give a clear response... other then pointing out that women spending a ton on fashion and makeup to look good (which was contradicted when they said they would do this for their job too), or to show a man values her (contradicted with he only needs to spend $2.75 on a cup of coffee for a date), or it isn't expected but he's tossed the second it doesn't occur.

 

I guess what bothers me so much is the distinct impression that none of it is appreciated. That although conceptually it should be a two way street where whoever asks pays for the meal, reality for that women is the man will always pay. Its not appreciated, because it's an expectation. Same as I expect my coffee to be put in a cup when I order it at a coffee shop. If it didn't come in some sort of cup, I wouldn't go there again. I don't appreciate the cup... I expect it. That's the feeling I get from some women posting in this thread. Not all women.. but definitely some.

[Taramere]

Are you basically stating that some of the women are fighting so hard for this idea that men should pay because it's a posturing mechanism? A need to prove that they are wanted and valued. To legitimize an opposite belief would devalue them? i.e. If paying for dinners did not hold value, then it would remove the woman's ability to value herself? Removes her belief system and her ability to assess her own inherient self-worth.

 

Well, I think it can be a factor. Carhill gave the example of a woman valuing a Cartier trinket more than she would value something that the man had designed and made himself. The more the guy paid for the thing he gave her, the higher the value she perceives him as placing on her. She can show the trinket to her friends and say "this is what a man thinks I'm worth."

 

It's the difference between self respect and being spoilt. There's nothing spoilt, in my view, about expecting someone who's interested in you in putting a bit of time, thought and effort into getting to know you. Neither is it spoilt to be genuinely appreciative and refrain from arguing if they decide they want to treat you and insist on paying.

 

It is, I think, spoilt and a tad whorish to put a monetary value on oneself and expect to be taken to the best restaurants, bought tasteful but expensive trinkets etc. However, one person's notion of spoilt and a tad whorish is another person's notion of classily giving out a "because I'm worth it!" message.

[Trialbyfire]

Walk, I'm going to give you my personal belief as to why men should pay, at least for the first date. Whether this agrees with other women, I have no idea.

 

I'm the type that has never asked a guy out. I want a guy who's got the guts to know what he wants and isn't afraid to go after it. Whether this is fair, since I won't reciprocate, is moot to me. That it doesn't slow down my dating process, is fine. If it did, I might amend this. Who knows what will happen in the future. Not I.

 

Since the guy is asking, he can pay. Also, reliant on the type of men you date, some are appalled when women ask to pay. It honestly is an affront to their ability to afford it. How I know is that on the second date, when I insist on paying, there have been more than enough times that I've had to do the guerrilla pay, while pretending to go to the womens' washroom.

 

It's also a way to see if they do begrudge. A guy with an attitude that begrudges paying for the first date, can also be a guy who begrudges other things in life. I want a man who's generous in all ways because I can be generous to a fault. I gift freely when it's something material and give time and emotion, without fail. I want a man with those same qualities. Also, if a man begrudges since he's overextending himself, makes me question how fiscally responsible he is, as well as makes me wonder what he expects in return. If he's looking for a roll in the hay on an ONS, he'll have to look elsewhere.

 

So, that's my personal skinny on it.

[Taramere]

I'd like for the women here to comment on how they'd feel if a man never asked them to pay, but also didn't spend much money on them.

 

Depending on the circumstances, I think I could find it quite limiting. For instance, if there was something I really wanted to do that carried a price tag higher than the usual date (eg a concert I wanted to see or a city I wanted to visit) then going by the philosophy that the man always selects the date and pays for it, I'd have to go on that activity by myself or with other friends rather than with the guy.

[The Collector]

Since the guy is asking, he can pay.

 

Do you agree to go on a date with everyone who asks you? No. Two people agree to meet. Why should one pay for the others time/food etc? Who invited who is only an issue because it suits your argument.

 

 

It's also a way to see if they do begrudge. A guy with an attitude that begrudges paying for the first date, can also be a guy who begrudges other things in life. I want a man who's generous in all ways because I can be generous to a fault.

'Begrudge' is quite an ugly word, and not really appropriate. It's a shaming-word. Wanting things to be fair and equal is not a case of 'begrudgment.' Conversely, it is you who is 'begrudging' to pay your share.

 

I gift freely when it's something material and give time and emotion, without fail.

Apart from the early stages of dating, where you test a man's generosity without feeling the need to reciprocate. Not my definition of giving freely to a fault.

 

I want a man with those same qualities.

What qualities? So far (in this early date scenario) you have shown no quality of generosity, only of expectation and entitlement.

 

Also, if a man begrudges since he's overextending himself, makes me question how fiscally responsible he is, as well as makes me wonder what he expects in return. If he's looking for a roll in the hay on an ONS, he'll have to look elsewhere.

And here we see the 'if he won't pay I'll assume he can't pay' mentality. And 'fiscally responsible' is code for 'rich' let's face it. Whatever your priorities are I guess.

 

Then you equate ability and willingness to pay for your expenses as evidence that he is not looking for a ONS - I guess it's fair for women who don't want to be 'used for sex' (because we all know women hate sex) to have some sort of system for filtering out the ones who just want to get in their pants (and whose own pants are unappealing) Showing how deep his pockets are, or how desperate he is to please you, is one way of testing how valued you are by the other person, I'll admit that. But not a very nice one IMO, and not fair to all the 'nice guys' out there genuinely looking for love. And actually not fair for the lotharios either. If you don't want a ONS, don't have one. But you don't deserve a free meal just for not being promiscous.

 

And just as women might worry about being wanted just for one thing, so men might be justified in testing whether a woman is just after one thing - their cash. Which is why taking the 'who pays?' dilemma out of the equation would be a very useful way for men to truly evaluate a woman's interest, if more had the balls to insist on it.

 

But live and let live, I'm not telling any man who sincerely wants to pay for a woman to stop. I think he's going about dating the wrong way, and will attract the wrong type of woman, but it's his funeral/empty wallet/costly divorce. I'll 'whine' about it on a dating site until the cows come home, however, because that's what a dating discussion board is for.

[Trialbyfire]

Collector, I've given you my perspective. That you choose to take it apart is your choice. I know exactly what I want and live that way. Do you begrudge me my lifestyle?

[carhill]

Her man is paying mightily right now

[Trialbyfire]

Slick, carhill, slick.

 

He's not complaining...

[carhill]

There are many currencies in life and value is in the "eye" of the beholder

[Trialbyfire]

Since we've alternated cash payments to the point of a push, the balance of currencies are non-monetary exchanges of wants and needs.

[The Collector]

Collector, I've given you my perspective. That you choose to take it apart is your choice. I know exactly what I want and live that way. Do you begrudge me my lifestyle?

 

No begrudgerating from me, TBF. I just enjoy debating with you... 'because you're worth it.'

[carhill]

Yup, that's it. It's possible to be "poor" monetarily, yet still very "rich". It's all about value. Of course, not an issue in your case. Glad to hear things are going well

[Trialbyfire]

No begrudgerating from me, TBF. I just enjoy debating with you... 'because you're worth it.'

Pay it forward Collector.

[Trialbyfire]

Thanks carhill. It's going well. We appear to have similar expectations of no expectations. The moment is now.

[The Collector]

Pay it forward Collector.

 

 

Honey I Shrunk The Kids, TBF.

 

Wait, I've lost track. And what's with all this off-topic thread leakage? MODS!