Jump to content

Men should pay for dates meals.


While the thread author can add an update and reopen discussion, this thread was last posted in over a month ago. Want to continue the conversation? Feel free to start a new thread instead!

Recommended Posts

Posted
If you'll let me put a nice big lily behind your ear, we might find some middle-ground.

 

Is "lily" a euphemism for something? I might consider it.

Posted
Is "lily" a euphemism for something? I might consider it.

 

What in the heck would you do with it behind your ear ?..

Posted
What in the heck would you do with it behind your ear ?..

 

I think it works like perfume. If you don't have great hygiene, then putting lilies in strategic places can make a difference.

 

Or else, by "lily", TBF was actually talking about something else. In that case, I have to say, "tell me more."

Posted

From my view point, the burden of paying and asking is more or less equally distributed between you and the men you date.

 

Yes, it is. I would never allow someone to pay for me all the time. It isn't fair. But if a man asks me out on a first date, I expect him to pay. If we decide to take it beyond the first date and do things together, then, of course I will pay probably as many times as he does. One thing I don't like is dutch. That's for teenagers. I am an adult and financially secure and date men not boys.

 

As for the other posters, I didn't read the entire thread so I really don't know what they posted.

 

To answer your questions, no, when I go out with friends, everyone usually pays for himself. However, there are times when I like to treat friends and so I do.

Posted
As for the other posters, I didn't read the entire thread so I really don't know what they posted.

Let me explain.

[pause]

No, there is too much. Let me sum up:

 

The thread is basically a discussion about the intrinsic fairness, or lack of fairness, in the societal norm that men should pay for all or most activities, expenses, and meals while "dating" (before the establishment of long-term exclusive relationship status). Positions so far seem to fall into a few general categories:

Both should pay their own way on all dates.

Who asks, pays, but women never ask.

Who asks, pays, but women don't ask until after ? dates.

Who asks, pays, and women ask first just like men.

Men should always ask and/or pay.

 

Along the way we have wandered through many interesting statements of personal preference about why people like it or want it to be a certain way while generally bypassing the central question of why that way is logically or objectively "fair". Other related topics address not whether the norm is fair, but rather, whether it serves some other useful function such as demonstrating that the man is generous and making the woman feel special. Finally, many people are uninterested in the theoretical aspect of the topic and merely point out that if a man wants sex or a second date, he'd better pay and appear to want to, and leave it at that.

 

Now you can skip the first 32 pages or so without missing much.

Posted

I just pay on the first date no matter what. If a girl's uber-insistent on paying, however, I'll let her. And by uber-insistent I mean "is literally taking the check from my hands after like a minute of assuring her it's not a problem for me"

Posted
Holy crap. How'd you get in my head! :eek::laugh:

Right back at ya sweetie! I thought I recognized a kindred mind. :cool:

Posted
Let me explain.

[pause]

No, there is too much. Let me sum up:

 

The thread is basically a discussion about the intrinsic fairness, or lack of fairness, in the societal norm that men should pay for all or most activities, expenses, and meals while "dating" (before the establishment of long-term exclusive relationship status). Positions so far seem to fall into a few general categories:

Both should pay their own way on all dates.

Who asks, pays, but women never ask.

Who asks, pays, but women don't ask until after ? dates.

Who asks, pays, and women ask first just like men.

Men should always ask and/or pay.

 

Along the way we have wandered through many interesting statements of personal preference about why people like it or want it to be a certain way while generally bypassing the central question of why that way is logically or objectively "fair". Other related topics address not whether the norm is fair, but rather, whether it serves some other useful function such as demonstrating that the man is generous and making the woman feel special. Finally, many people are uninterested in the theoretical aspect of the topic and merely point out that if a man wants sex or a second date, he'd better pay and appear to want to, and leave it at that.

 

Now you can skip the first 32 pages or so without missing much.

You forgot the discussion surrounding the "whining" aspect of this type of discussion, in that men should take action within their lives v. running around blaming women for not wanting to mercy date.

Posted
You forgot the discussion surrounding the "whining" aspect of this type of discussion, in that men should take action within their lives v. running around blaming women for not wanting to mercy date.

Maybe I missed that part. I thought mercy dating was going on a date with someone who asked you out, but who you weren't interested in, to try to avoid hurting their feelings. I see where you get the whining part, not sure how that relates to taking action and mercy dating though.

Posted
Maybe I missed that part. I thought mercy dating was going on a date with someone who asked you out, but who you weren't interested in, to try to avoid hurting their feelings. I see where you get the whining part, not sure how that relates to taking action and mercy dating though.

 

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.

Here is the post that started the entire whining discussion. In essence, take action.

 

From there I'm now taking it further in that if you whine about it without taking action, do you expect women to mercy date when they're not interested in you or how you choose to present yourself on the key first date?

Posted

Ah, I see. So add to that post, "Finally, some people have little patience for men who want to whine, complain, and protest the unfairness of societal ills when they have the ability to control the situation and render the actual impact on them negligible."

 

As for the question of how you choose to present yourself on the key first date, I think we are talking about two separate issues here. One is what we would like, and the other is what we find reasonable and fair to expect. I would like a woman to take the risk to ask me out, plan and pay for everything, be completely uninhibited in bed, give me a house, ski boat, sports car, motorcycle, unlimited educational tuition, along generous monthly allowance so I am free to pursue my intellectual and recreational interests while serving as a boy toy for her and her large group of super model friends. I think it is reasonable and fair to expect something totally different, and that influences how I react and respond to people. Of course, what I feel and what I think are not always in sync. Sometimes I just have to admit to myself and the world that in certain areas I am an ass with unreasonable desires and expectations. Other times I have to acknowledge that my emotional responses and reactions as simply irrational and illogical. But in those cases I know the problem is my own, since I am the one clinging to unreasonable desires and expectations or irrational emotional responses. Other times I feel I am justified in my expectations and reactions, and I am willing to judge the other person negatively as a result.

 

On the other hand, I understand many people are not like this, and for them it is sufficent to say, "I like XYZ and it makes me feel good. Plenty of people are willing to give me XYZ. Therefore, I see no reason to change and I have no problem rejecting people whose primary offense is to not agree with my arbitrary desire for XYZ."

Posted

Either party has the ability to reject each other, based on differences in expectations. Control isn't all in the hands of women within the dating process, unless you believe it is or your only interest is playing the numbers game, based on an ego trip.

Posted
Either party has the ability to reject each other, based on differences in expectations.

I think you are missing the point. You seem insistent on coming at the issue as if all differences in expectations are equal or equivalent. If I reject you because you are unwilling to engage in any sexual intimacy at all, that expectation is probably fair and reasonable, and wouldn't necessarily reflect badly on me as a person. If I reject you because you are unwilling to recruit an endless supply of additional women to have sex with us in serial threesomes, that expecation is probably not fair and resonable, and would reflect badly on me as a person. We don't look at both those scenarios and simply shrug our shoulders, claim differences of opinion, and walk away without weighing and judging the expectations of both parties. There is a difference, and the line isn't often very clear, which is why we have discussion like the thread where people are discussing whether it is reasonable to end a relationship if the other person is unwilling to perform oral sex.

Posted

Women pop 10 pound babies out of a two inch hole.

 

Men pay for the first couple of dinners.

 

Nuff said.

Posted
Women pop 10 pound babies out of a two inch hole.

 

Men pay for the first couple of dinners.

 

Nuff said.

 

I read that as :

 

Women pop 10 pound babies out of a two inch hole.

 

Men pay for the first couple of beers.

 

Nuff said.

 

hahaha

Posted

Nope, I'm not missing the point at all. I see no merit to the point, as both parties have full control over their own actions and have personal choice to meet the expectation(s) or shrug and walk away.

 

There is no relationship. It's dating, which is the ability to meet new people and decide if you're compatible enough to form a relationship or for some people, just a way to have fun and socialize. Why people are taking something so seriously and making it about equality for all of mankind, I fail to understand.

Posted
I read that as :

 

 

 

hahaha

 

 

That better be some good beer, Art!

Posted
Women pop 10 pound babies out of a two inch hole.

 

Men pay for the first couple of dinners.

 

Nuff said.

 

Men die ten years earlier than women

 

Women can afford to pay for their half.

 

Worst argument ever.

Posted
Men die ten years earlier than women

 

Women can afford to pay for their half.

 

Worst argument ever.

 

Apparently you've never had a baby.

Posted
Apparently you've never had a baby.

 

What would you choose, having a baby or ten years less life on this plnet?

Posted
What would you choose, having a baby or ten years less life on this plnet?

 

 

Ten years less on the planet. The last ten usually suck anyway.

Posted
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.

I haven't read the whole thing, but if you want to talk "market forces", let's consider the fact that most unattached women who are even reasonably attractive have many men competing for them. If 9 out of 10 of these men are willing to pay for the first few dates (and in my experience the proportion is higher -- more like 98%), and even seem to enjoy doing so, why would she bother with the 1 who prefers to split the check or have her pay?

Posted

You completely misinterpreted my post, but that's OK. :)

 

Collector is from the UK, and there isn't quite the same dating culture here that there is in the US. Sure, some people do subscribe to the US style, but I would say it's far more common here for people to meet up for a drink as a first date.

 

My feeling about the difference between male/female relationships here (UK) and in the US, based on what I've read on predominantly US message boards, is that dates are more of an "interview for potential partner" over in the US. A serious, planned out business - rather than just an opportunity for two people to spend time together in a social context that may or may not lead to romance.

 

I've had definite American style invitations extended by men here along the lines of "I'm taking you to dinner", and if I offer to return the treat by buying dinner another time it's met with a derisive laugh and a "you will not. But you can cook for me if you like" response. That's the dominant "I'm the man, you're the woman" approach which is, to refer to Collector's reference to Swedish dating, the signal some men will give of overt interest. It's far from universal though. I've found it more common amongst men who are older than me and higher up professionally.

 

A man with a less dominant approach might simply say " do you fancy meeting up for something to eat?" in the way that any of your friends might. When a friend makes that suggestion to me, I don't assume that they're offering to pay. Likewise I don't make the assumption, if it's a man who might be interested in me romantically - but isn't necessarily so, that he's offering to treat.

 

I'd add quickly that I don't think a man taking a less dominant, "traditionally masculine" approach carries the stigma here that it perhaps does in the US.

 

 

 

I've had a lot of dealings with Scandinavians...partly because of the proximity of the Nordic countries to mine. If you think Scandinavians are rude, then you're very misinformed. Although they can be a little reserved, they are exceptionally polite and hospitable people with a very egalitarian, fair-minded outlook.

 

It's unlikely that you would see a Scandinavian woman throwing an undignified scene about a man picking up the tab. More likely that she might debate the fairness of it, to the man, with warmth, charm and humour. It may well be that in America, the pursuit of fairness and egalitarianism for both genders is an ugly, uncouth and aggressive business (though from the posts of some of the more analytical and articulate American women on this board, I wouldn't perceive it that way).

 

I'm assuming you're that poster who's so taken with the "He's just not into you" book. You are generally speedy to assume a feminist stance when sexist propositions that don't suit you are put forward. It's somewhat disingenuous to dive into the cosy, oh-so-womanly "ugh, rude women throwing a feminist scene" role to ridicule arguments that are intended to examine and be considerate of male interests as well as female ones.

Posted
Nope, I'm not missing the point at all. I see no merit to the point, as both parties have full control over their own actions and have personal choice to meet the expectation(s) or shrug and walk away.

 

There is no relationship. It's dating, which is the ability to meet new people and decide if you're compatible enough to form a relationship or for some people, just a way to have fun and socialize. Why people are taking something so seriously and making it about equality for all of mankind, I fail to understand.

TBF, I did some reading of your posts on other threads, and I think I understand where you are coming from much more than I did previously. You seem to view a great many things as no more significant than personal preference and see little need to justify those preferences or judge the relative merit of holding those pereferences. This is something you seem to apply equally to yourself and others. From your point of view, I can see how you would see little more in this topic than preference and practicallity. While I may not entirely share you point of view, I think I see how your posts make logical sense given your general perspective.

Posted
Men die ten years earlier than women

 

Women can afford to pay for their half.

 

Worst argument ever.

 

 

Women have to give birth to a 10 pound baby and keep taking care of them for 10 extra years because the H will be dead. Men should pay. :p

 

I can't believe this thread is still being argued. :lmao:

 

Men I see what you are saying and I do validate the unfairness of it all I hear you loud and clear. But it's just HOT when a guy takes conrol on this respect. It just is, sorry.

×
×
  • Create New...