WalkInThePark Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 So would you rather be sitting at home bored, or go on a date (food and drinks provided) with a guy you're not really into? I can buy my own food and drinks. As a matter of fact, I love to go to a good restaurant and if I feel like doing it, I do it on my own. It is a bit uncomfortable at first. But I live in a city with a lot of great restaurants and have become a very good customer in some of them which means that I get the VIP treatment by now. Of course the reason why I kept going to those restaurants was exactly the fact that they did not give me the cold shoulder when I went for dinner on my own. Those who found it necessary to put me at their worst table in a dark corner have not seen me back. I rather do things alone than in bad company. I also have a lot of things in which I am interested so I am basically never bored. My problem is rather that I don't have enough time to do everything I want to do. So I don't need to date to keep myself busy.
kalikula Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 I think most of these women must believe that they are giving the guy a chance... If they're completely uninterested then they mostly likely wouldn't want to be seen with the guy, or would demand to pay their own share so the guy wouldn't think that they have any interest in them. I think this is a bit like the car thread- there are always users (Guys that will constantly bum rides off women they're dating, women who go out to dinner because "they're bored")... You just have to weed out those people- they don't represent everyone of that gender, merely a small percentage of people who take advantage of others for whatever reason. But still, I do find it strange. I would feel uncomfortable accepting a date with someone I was completely uninterested in when I could have much more fun by myself at home or out with friends.
Pink Cupcakes Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 no, not reallly. I have continued dating a guy I wasn't into and knew it would never work out, but he was great in bed.
zengirl Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 Guys think this because they have actually experienced it. A lot of women absolutely do go on dates just to get free entertainment. Some of them rationalize it by thinking to themselves that they are giving the guy a chance. I have also heard some women say they they are dating to "meet people" and then they go on a date with a guy who ends up paying for a meal or some other entertainment. Women like that have to know that the guys are not just looking to meet people and want something more, otherwise, why else would a guy pay for a meal/entertainment to spend time with a woman he just met? How do you know when you've experienced it? Maybe the girl was giving you a chance and just realized she didn't like what she saw. However: Whilst I insist on paying my share on a bad date especially, I know more women who will insist less on a bad date under the the logic, "I had to suffer through a bad date. At least it should be free." That might happen. I'm not sure that's terribly healthy, but it certainly isn't the same thing as a girl going out for a free meal. Ascribing any sort of motive to someone you've only been out with once or twice is faulty, though.
Pink Cupcakes Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 One meal is not that big of a deal. If one meal is putting a guy out that much, he needs to be working on getting a better job. Also, if a guy asks me out, he might be asking me out as a friend, or just trying to get in my pants? Just because a guy pays for a meal doesn't mean it's a "date" and there are romantic intentions on either end. There is no taking advantage here at all.
Pink Cupcakes Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 The potential can be quite pragmatic as well. Most adult women know how to 'handle' men, so, if one wishes to enjoy a little socializing, what better way than have an interested male plan it, provide it and pay for it, all the while casting an eye out for other interesting males and enjoying one's time socializing. If another potential presents itself, 'we're not together' (this is a common phrase I've heard) and life goes on without a care, or a bill. Rinse and repeat as appropriate. It's wonderfully efficient and economical. Now, if the gentleman requesting the date doesn't pass a minimum attractiveness criteria, or is 'too' attractive, this might impact the 'competition' aspect of getting other men interested, so a lady must be discerning in whose dates she accepts. Enjoy! Nah, it's really not like that. You sound pretty bitter about women and should stay out of the dating scene for a while, lol.
Pink Cupcakes Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Technically the asker of the date is the one who should pay, be there any romantic intentions or not. and...yes, if paying for a meal for a woman on a first date is actually an issue, then you do need to get out of the dating scene and get a better job to fund dates if you are the one asking.
Untouchable_Fire Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Technically the asker of the date is the one who should pay, be there any romantic intentions or not. and...yes, if paying for a meal for a woman on a first date is actually an issue, then you do need to get out of the dating scene and get a better job to fund dates if you are the one asking. Exactly... because if this seems unfair to a guy now... just wait until he finds himself in divorce court. I'm sorry Pinky.... but in my opinion, you can either accept gender double standards as they are or not. You can't pick and choose. I don't mind paying for first dates... but then why should a woman get paid just as much for doing the same job... right? I think 75% of my pay should be a fair cap.
Pink Cupcakes Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 nah, the asker should pay, or at least offer to pay. I am dating a guy now who absolutely refuses to let me pay for anything. I did buy him a nice bottle of wine I knew he'd like, and he appreciated that. This guys spends like money on really good bottles of champagne for me, etc. So is that my fault, this guy chooses to want to pay for expensive dinners and champagne because he knows I like them? I certainly don't ask for the champagne.
Sanman Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Originally Posted by Untouchable_Fire Exactly... because if this seems unfair to a guy now... just wait until he finds himself in divorce court. I'm sorry Pinky.... but in my opinion, you can either accept gender double standards as they are or not. You can't pick and choose. I don't mind paying for first dates... but then why should a woman get paid just as much for doing the same job... right? I think 75% of my pay should be a fair cap. Agreed. If dating and marriage is about two equals looking for a companion/mate, then why should I have to pay to get to know a woman? She will be getting presumably equal value in knowing me, so she should pay her half. I assume that she wanted to be there as well since I was not forcing her to accept the invitation. I actually have less of an issue paying for friends/girlfriends. Yet, my friends ask me to do things all the time and I never assume they are going to pay for me just because I was invited by them. I have an issue paying for someone that may mean nothing to me and I will likely never speak to again. Also, it isn't just one dinner. It one, two, three dates multiplied by the number of women you meet. This adds up after a while. My friend recently calculated that he spent $5000 more on his gf last year than she spent going out last year. That was largely due to dinners, tickets, gifts, etc.
Candescence Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) Technically the asker of the date is the one who should pay, be there any romantic intentions or not. and...yes, if paying for a meal for a woman on a first date is actually an issue, then you do need to get out of the dating scene and get a better job to fund dates if you are the one asking. I love this lol. We all know that men do like 99% of the asking. The sheer irony is that women expect men to ask and pay for the first few dates...but once they are exclusive its all about going dutch. Once you have established you really like someone...should you want to pay then, versus when you barely know someone? Futher...using 100 bucks a date as an example....why is it if a man wants to get to know 5 women its 500 dollars. But if a woman wants to get to know 5 men, its free? Food for thought....pun intended Edited July 21, 2010 by Candescence
Pink Cupcakes Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 So? If a guy wants the pleasure of a woman's company, he needs to ask her out and women are free to do the same with guys.
Sanman Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 [so? If a guy wants the pleasure of a woman's company, he needs to ask her out and women are free to do the same with guys. /QUOTE] Wait, so you get no pleasure out of a man's company? Why accept the invite then? This is just hiding behind tradition as the status quo is for a man to do the asking. Easy to say when it will never even out.
spookie Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 When on the fence about someone I'll often elect in favor of bright lights and fresh air and company instead of sitting home alone with my thumb up my ***. Sometimes that's how surprising relationships are made. I've never done it for food, though, how amateur-whorish. Nor with someone who was a clear cut Next. Agreed. This is the thought process behind giving someone a chance. What do I have to lose?
Pink Cupcakes Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 yeah but I am free to ask a man out myself. If I do so, I will pull out my wallet, although in the past my boyfriends who really cared for me usually refused to let me pay, even though I initiated the outing.
Untouchable_Fire Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 nah, the asker should pay, or at least offer to pay. I am dating a guy now who absolutely refuses to let me pay for anything. I did buy him a nice bottle of wine I knew he'd like, and he appreciated that. This guys spends like money on really good bottles of champagne for me, etc. So is that my fault, this guy chooses to want to pay for expensive dinners and champagne because he knows I like them? I certainly don't ask for the champagne. I'm the same way. I pay. I have a good job and make plenty of money. Don't get me wrong... I'm not against men paying, I think it's good. What drives me up the wall is when women complain if guys judge them for sleeping with whole armies... or complain that they don't get paid what men get paid... ect. So? If a guy wants the pleasure of a woman's company, he needs to ask her out and women are free to do the same with guys. I used to get asked more than I do the asking... but it seems to have dropped off as I get older... yeah but I am free to ask a man out myself. If I do so, I will pull out my wallet, although in the past my boyfriends who really cared for me usually refused to let me pay, even though I initiated the outing. It's funny... it doesn't bother me one bit to pay for a woman I care about. It does get me a little when I pay for 1st and 2nd dates then never hear back. I mentioned earlier that I had a woman pay for me recently... I can honestly say it drove me up the wall. It felt like I had lost control... and that I was a bad date.
Kamille Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Women like that have to know that the guys are not just looking to meet people and want something more, otherwise, why else would a guy pay for a meal/entertainment to spend time with a woman he just met? I'd be curious to know what that something more a guy would want with a near perfect stranger? I mean, has it never happened to you that you ask a woman out on a date only to realize during the date that you two aren't compatible and that you aren't that interested in her after all? Are we supposed to know before the date that we'll like that person? That doesn't make sense to me. How could I know ahead of time whether I like someone or not? In that, I agree that the "men pay for dates" rule is unfair and like others, I have insisted on going dutch if I realize once on the date that I don't see it going any further. Most men refuse this and will insist on paying anyway.
jamesum Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 The person who asks the other out has to pay. After thinking about it more I guess its the guys fault too. I mean asking someone out is a gamble. You have a choice whether you wanna be alone or you wanna have a partner. If you wanna have someone then you have to ask someone out and not only that will cost you money but also there is no guarantee that it will be successful. Yeah maybe its unfair but all you can do is wish that you will be born as a woman in the next life.
Cracker Jack Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Are we supposed to know before the date that we'll like that person? That doesn't make sense to me. How could I know ahead of time whether I like someone or not? In that, I agree that the "men pay for dates" rule is unfair and like others, I have insisted on going dutch if I realize once on the date that I don't see it going any further. Most men refuse this and will insist on paying anyway. Nah, you'd need to be a psychic for that one. The problem is some women continue to go on dates with a guy they really have no interest in. I've seen this done plenty of times, and it's really a waste of time, to be quite honest. I can understand going through with a few dates--but if he's not that woman's cup of tea, she should just stop it there instead of continuously giving the guy false hope; not to mention wasting time and money in the process. That's just my two cents.
zengirl Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 I'm sorry Pinky.... but in my opinion, you can either accept gender double standards as they are or not. You can't pick and choose. She said several times that the “Asker” should pay. How is that gender biased? (I’m not even saying I’m on Pinky’s particular boat on this – my own thoughts on this issue are more free-flow than that, but the Asker could be someone of either gender.) If men want to stop asking girls out, they can certainly do so. Nothing is stopping them. I don't understand this complaint. (Then again, I much prefer to ask guys out -- or initiate some kind of friendship-esque thing with them first -- than to be approached by guys, so I'm weird; this is mostly because I pick better guys than pick me. The kind of guys who go up to women a lot seem to be much less well-adjusted than those I meet through friends, hanging out, etc) The problem is some women continue to go on dates with a guy they really have no interest in. I've seen this done plenty of times, and it's really a waste of time, to be quite honest. I can understand going through with a few dates--but if he's not that woman's cup of tea, she should just stop it there instead of continuously giving the guy false hope; not to mention wasting time and money in the process.This is what I don't get: How do you know these women are doing that? Have you asked them? Are you certain they are already conscious that these gals know they don't want to date the guy yet are going out with him anyway? How do guys put forth such assertions anyway? It seems to me like you are assuming this, based on your in-the-dark position in such exchanges. People rarely bring the people they discard from their social life within a few dates in on the inner-workings of their minds. I've never known women to go on tedious dates with guys they don't like. I have known women to change their minds about guys they've gone out with, or not know at all or have their minds made up, or meet another guy they happened to like more, or have something else happened to swing their interest away. Come to think of it, I've known men who've done all those things too---it's all pretty human.
denise_xo Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 jeez lads, aren't the cultural differences great... over here we go for coffee or a pint for the first date and if it runs to more than 1 the women are more than willing to share the cost... Dinner might happen by date 3.... or 4..... Dinner is more a 'couples' thing to do rather than a date thing in my experience....(and I'm early 30s, at this for 18 months now after an LTR!) am SOOO glad I am not on your side of the 'pond'...man it'd cost me a fortune on girls I never see again!!! Agree, I always share costs and that's the norm where I live. If a man insists to pay everything, it makes me feel quite uncomfortable and I tell him that. If he still insists, I make sure I pay next time (tell him I won't eat otherwise). So, I can't say I've never gone on a date out of boredom, but definitely not for the food and drinks.
flying Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) In the past, during single periods, friends/family would try to nudge me into going on dates with people I wasn't interested in, because they figured I might as well. But I quickly learned to trust my instincts. (For the record, boys, these men didn't treat me to dinner or anything else, by the way.) So to sum up: Hell no, I wouldn't go on a date just because I'm bored. I'd rather hang out with friends, amuse myself, travel, whatever. I do know people - men and women - who date because on some level they just enjoy it, yes, enjoy meeting new people, enjoy trying new restaurants, enjoy just going out, even if they discover they are not romantically interested in their dates. I also know at least one person who approaches dating almost as if it's her job. So seriously, there's quite a wide variety of approaches to this. If you're only finding people who you think are using you, your people-picker is way off; might be worth spending the dating time/money thinking about that instead. Edited July 21, 2010 by flying
Recommended Posts