A new twist on the "who pays?" debate

[oaks]

I'm still waiting to read about "a new twist". Is there one?

 

It's a good debate and "who pays" continues to be an area of apparent inequality in dating for some people, but I think we've covered these points before!

[Voldar]

I'm still waiting to read about "a new twist". Is there one?

 

It's a good debate and "who pays" continues to be an area of apparent inequality in dating for some people, but I think we've covered these points before!

 

It's like pepsi twist, a touch of lemon! . Hehe.

[rafallus]

If there is a real connection, there is never an issue with "who pays." It just falls into place. It's never been an issue with dating in my life. If you are putting this much thought and worry into paying for a dinner for a woman you want to spend time with and are looking at possibly developing a relationship with, then you aren't going to be any fun to date for any woman. You are going to be uptight if you are thinking about your wallet, focusing on who will pay after you ask her out for a second date, worried that she's dating another guy and yet you just paid for her dinner and movie....life is too short to worry about this, just date, find someone who does it for you, and live and love!

I can say that is pretty much true, even if doesn't offer logical solution.

 

What I have found, that if people care about each other, nobody insists about splitting OR one party paying for all. What happens is either everyone JUST pays for each other, or there was some prior favor that causes one party to pay for both. Nobody is leeching of one another and nobody cares about any sort of imbalance of efforts.

 

That thing won't happen with everyone though.

[tigressA]

I agree completely with the OP. That's exactly how it was for me in college...sigh. I do miss those days. All the boyfriends/hookups I had started with guys I had met through various friends/activities, and we had regularly interacted with each other for weeks before we had gone out on any 'real' dates. Since we were all pretty much broke it was easy to be more creative and find cheap/free dates--the school really helped with that as they always had events going on, like open mic nights, comedy acts, interesting lectures and movie screenings. So much less pressure and money to be spent, so much more fun.

[Ginger Beer]

Here's how I date with regard to splitting the bill:

 

If I know I am NOT going to want to see the guy again and he insists on paying, I won't let him. I'll insist on splitting.

 

If I know I am going to see the guy again and he insists on paying, I'll let him, and I'll treat him the next time.

 

If I go on a date with someone I am attracted to and want to see him again and he makes a big deal about splitting the bill- I'd never go out with him again. I'll always offer to split the bill, I always do. But the kind of guy that suggests the split is not second date material.

 

This makes a lot of sense. I also think whoever asks to go on a date should pay the first time. Because it's mostly men who ask, they pay. But I don't think men should pay because they are men.

[laotzu]

I generally pay, particularly the first couple of times. If a girl doesn't at least offer to pay during the first 2 - 3 dates, the chances of me wanting to see that girl again are slim to none. I'll bet 35% of the girls who get faded on after a few dates are girls who never offer to pay for anything, because most guys are going to look at the behavior and think that the girl will feel entitled to never have to pay for the dates going forward.

 

No joke: a girl who offers to pay for the second date, or who wants to take the guy out for drinks after a dinner or something, is really attractive.

[Pierre]

I've always thought that this behavior was damaging, not only because it can get pretty expensive, not only because it serves as an ego boost to women at the expense of men, but because it is illogical to spend time and resources on huge gambles as well.

 

Dude, women dislike cheap men. It is in their genes! Women are more attracted to men that can provided even if they are not gold diggers.

 

 

Dating is in and of itself a huge gamble. People sacrifice their time, they put themselves in a vulnerable situation emotionally by being subject to rejection, humiliation, being strung along, deceived, and so forth. And all this is before one gets to the committed relationship stage. So my intuition tells me, "if you don't absolutely have to put money into dating in addition to everything else, why do men continuously insist on doing it?"

 

Insecurity is not attractive to women. Cheap plus insecurity will get you nowhere.

 

 

 

But what's the one thing I actually DO have control over in this situation? The answer is: my wallet.

 

Strike three, women dislike controlling men. Surprisingly being controlling goes hand in hand with insecurity.

[Pierre]

Here's how I date with regard to splitting the bill:

 

If I know I am NOT going to want to see the guy again and he insists on paying, I won't let him. I'll insist on splitting.

 

If I know I am going to see the guy again and he insists on paying, I'll let him, and I'll treat him the next time.

 

If I go on a date with someone I am attracted to and want to see him again and he makes a big deal about splitting the bill- I'd never go out with him again. I'll always offer to split the bill, I always do. But the kind of guy that suggests the split is not second date material.

 

 

OP: I suggest you memorize the above post. This is the way it should be at all times.

 

BTW, I always pay. I even pay for male friends having a casual lunch. I pay for my mom, my sister, and my brother in law. Stop the obsession.

[TheBigQuestion]

Dude, women dislike cheap men. It is in their genes! Women are more attracted to men that can provided even if they are not gold diggers.

 

 

 

 

Insecurity is not attractive to women. Cheap plus insecurity will get you nowhere.

 

 

 

 

 

Strike three, women dislike controlling men. Surprisingly being controlling goes hand in hand with insecurity.

 

How many times can you miss the point in the same post? I'll respond tit for tat.

 

1. You have a very interesting definition of cheapness. All I propose in my OP and in every subsequent post is that there are alternatives to traditional style casual dating that don't involve a man spending money. I have no problems planning dates and paying for women that I have good reason to believe are loyal to me. Dating happens to be the only social convention I know of in which paying for a near total stranger is not only acceptable but is in some antiquated circles (i.e. yours) considered compulsory. I think this is silly. In spite of this, you can choose to call me cheap if you want to, so long as I get to call you a sucker.

 

2. Everyone has insecurities. I do, you do, every girl I've ever dated does, every poster on this board does. Pulling this card is poor argumentation. Try again. And if you'd bother to read anything I've written, doing things the way I did them HAS obviously gotten me somewhere.

 

3. Yes, I like being the master of my bank account. Big deal.

[oaks]

BTW, I always pay. I even pay for male friends having a casual lunch. I pay for my mom, my sister, and my brother in law. Stop the obsession.

 

What would happen if you went on a date with D-Lish? Would there be a big fight over you paying vs her insisting on splitting it?

[Pierre]

How many times can you miss the point in the same post? I'll respond tit for tat.

 

1. You have a very interesting definition of cheapness. All I propose in my OP and in every subsequent post is that there are alternatives to traditional style casual dating that don't involve a man spending money. I have no problems planning dates and paying for women that I have good reason to believe are loyal to me. Dating happens to be the only social convention I know of in which paying for a near total stranger is not only acceptable but is in some antiquated circles (i.e. yours) considered compulsory. I think this is silly. In spite of this, you can choose to call me cheap if you want to, so long as I get to call you a sucker.

 

OK, may be I was harsh. Sometimes cheap is inversely proportional to the size of your wallet. If you have a small wallet then plan dates with no dinner and drinks.

 

2. Everyone has insecurities. I do, you do, every girl I've ever dated does, every poster on this board does. Pulling this card is poor argumentation. Try again. And if you'd bother to read anything I've written, doing things the way I did them HAS obviously gotten me somewhere.

 

None of us is normal. I applaud you for recognizing that ALL of us have some issues. The next step in your recovery is not to act on those issues and to do what is counter to your ingrained impulses. As I said memorize the post above. That is the way a normal woman looks at a man on a date.

 

 

3. Yes, I like being the master of my bank account. Big deal.

Women are not attracted to men that want to be masters of their wallet.

 

There are two possibilities:

 

The wallet is small

 

or you must have ultimate control.

 

I know that I sound harsh, but there is no other way to drive this message home. You need to look at yourself from the shoes of the people in front of you. Your concerns with "who pays" or "I don't want to pay" create tension in your dates.

 

What I do on many dates is:

 

When dinner is over I get up and pretend to go to the bathroom. I secretly find the waiter and pay for dinner and my date never knows what is going on. I try to avoid my date the stress of seeing the waiter come to the table with the check in hand. If I forget to fetch the waiter and the bill comes to the table I immediately give the credit card to the waiter without looking at the check. I assume that if I look at the check my date will feel uneasy.

 

Most women that are keepers want men that take care of the bill even if they are not gold diggers. As was said above, if a woman insists on paying then you know she does not like you.

[Allie32]

As a guy, I've always felt that society has unfairly pressured men into believing that dating cannot successfully occur without paying for a woman on said dates, or at least offering to pay. Most guys, even if a woman expresses a desire to go dutch, will still insist on taking care of expenses anyway. And lets face it. Most women, even when offering to go dutch, secretly expect or feel entitled to being paid for anyway. I've always thought that this behavior was damaging, not only because it can get pretty expensive, not only because it serves as an ego boost to women at the expense of men, but because it is illogical to spend time and resources on huge gambles as well.

 

Dating is in and of itself a huge gamble. People sacrifice their time, they put themselves in a vulnerable situation emotionally by being subject to rejection, humiliation, being strung along, deceived, and so forth. And all this is before one gets to the committed relationship stage. So my intuition tells me, "if you don't absolutely have to put money into dating in addition to everything else, why do men continuously insist on doing it?"

 

Time for a hypothetical. Suppose I meet a random girl on a dating site, "Jessica." I take her out on a date, dinner and drinks, maybe $50-60 total. Nothing fancy. I insist on paying. This is a first, second, or maybe third date. I've spent money when I could have just as easily gotten to know her better spending no money at all. What exactly is it about this hypothetical that leads to a potentially damaging situation for me? Simple. I don't know anything about Jessica. She might not have liked the way my hair sits atop my head and might never speak to me again, or she might do "the fadeout." Or she might be going home after dinner and drinks that I paid for and calling up some other random dude to have sex. She could be on her way to yet another date that very night. She might still be texting a tenacious ex-boyfriend.

 

Call it pride or ego, but something about even the possibility of those happening does not sit well with me. Dating is risky and time consuming for the reasons I mentioned initially. But what's the one thing I actually DO have control over in this situation? The answer is: my wallet.

 

And my adventures in the past 18 months have proven to me that, with a little ingenuity and the ability to be a bit of a social chameleon, it is possible to get everything from FWBs to committed, loving relationships with successful and intelligent women all without spending money. During this time period, I unconsciously did not pay for any woman that I was "seeing" other than the money I spent on transportation/feeding myself, or at least I didn't spend any money that I did not know would be equally reciprocated (or even exceeded).

 

So I guess my answer to the question in the thread's title is: "No one pays, at least not at first."

 

I'm willing to discuss exactly what I did, but I know this post is long already, and I've probably lost some of you as a result

 

If you don't want to pay more than 40-50 bucks on a date with a woman you don't know yet,than meet for coffee or a cocktail.

 

Don't go to a lavish dinner. My boyfriend always insisted on paying for dates. My father always told me a man isn't a gentleman is he allows a woman to pay. I agree with him.

[Hot Chick]

OK, may be I was harsh. Sometimes cheap is inversely proportional to the size of your wallet. If you have a small wallet then plan dates with no dinner and drinks.

 

 

 

None of us is normal. I applaud you for recognizing that ALL of us have some issues. The next step in your recovery is not to act on those issues and to do what is counter to your ingrained impulses. As I said memorize the post above. That is the way a normal woman looks at a man on a date.

 

 

Women are not attracted to men that want to be masters of their wallet.

 

There are two possibilities:

 

The wallet is small

 

or you must have ultimate control.

 

I know that I sound harsh, but there is no other way to drive this message home. You need to look at yourself from the shoes of the people in front of you. Your concerns with "who pays" or "I don't want to pay" create tension in your dates.

 

What I do on many dates is:

 

When dinner is over I get up and pretend to go to the bathroom. I secretly find the waiter and pay for dinner and my date never knows what is going on. I try to avoid my date the stress of seeing the waiter come to the table with the check in hand. If I forget to fetch the waiter and the bill comes to the table I immediately give the credit card to the waiter without looking at the check. I assume that if I look at the check my date will feel uneasy.

 

Most women that are keepers want men that take care of the bill even if they are not gold diggers. As was said above, if a woman insists on paying then you know she does not like you.

THIS is how it's done.

[Hot Chick]

What would happen if you went on a date with D-Lish? Would there be a big fight over you paying vs her insisting on splitting it?

 

She would let him pay if she were attracted to him and interested - which we don't know if that would happen or not.

[rafallus]

Sometimes cheap is inversely proportional to the size of your wallet. If you have a small wallet then plan dates with no dinner and drinks.

 

IMO core of the whole problem lies here.

 

I've known and hung out with at least several folks with six-figure income. Mindset was completely different - they absolutely did not give a flying **** about how much and who they spent on. Simply put, money is no object with them. If in their shoes, I'd probably be the same way.

 

For those not so lucky, including myself, it's more of an exercise in frugality - picking proper activities that don't cause to drain wallet's content in one evening, yet are still fun. Actually, richer folks should know this as well. Fun > spending money on sb. And it has absolutely nothing to do with being cheap at all.

[TheBigQuestion]

OK, may be I was harsh. Sometimes cheap is inversely proportional to the size of your wallet. If you have a small wallet then plan dates with no dinner and drinks.

 

 

 

None of us is normal. I applaud you for recognizing that ALL of us have some issues. The next step in your recovery is not to act on those issues and to do what is counter to your ingrained impulses. As I said memorize the post above. That is the way a normal woman looks at a man on a date.

 

 

Women are not attracted to men that want to be masters of their wallet.

 

There are two possibilities:

 

The wallet is small

 

or you must have ultimate control.

 

I know that I sound harsh, but there is no other way to drive this message home. You need to look at yourself from the shoes of the people in front of you. Your concerns with "who pays" or "I don't want to pay" create tension in your dates.

 

What I do on many dates is:

 

When dinner is over I get up and pretend to go to the bathroom. I secretly find the waiter and pay for dinner and my date never knows what is going on. I try to avoid my date the stress of seeing the waiter come to the table with the check in hand. If I forget to fetch the waiter and the bill comes to the table I immediately give the credit card to the waiter without looking at the check. I assume that if I look at the check my date will feel uneasy.

 

Most women that are keepers want men that take care of the bill even if they are not gold diggers. As was said above, if a woman insists on paying then you know she does not like you.

 

Do you put effort into being dense or does it just come naturally?

 

The point I've been making throughout this whole thread is that the "dating" process can be sidestepped altogether and you can still wind up with whatever type of relationship you seek. That's all there is to it. The "who pays" issue never comes up in any dates for me, and therefore doesn't cause any tension, because I DON'T DATE in the traditional manner. Your attempts to guilt me into thinking there is something wrong with me because I have a different way of doing things than you do (and a way that works well) are pretty laughable. Much like your antiquated views on women with tattoos and tramp stamps, your views on relationships could use an update as well. That and your reading comprehension skills.

[oaks]

She would let him pay if she were attracted to him and interested - which we don't know if that would happen or not.

 

But then she would want to pay for the second date.

[TheBigQuestion]

I agree completely with the OP. That's exactly how it was for me in college...sigh. I do miss those days. All the boyfriends/hookups I had started with guys I had met through various friends/activities, and we had regularly interacted with each other for weeks before we had gone out on any 'real' dates. Since we were all pretty much broke it was easy to be more creative and find cheap/free dates--the school really helped with that as they always had events going on, like open mic nights, comedy acts, interesting lectures and movie screenings. So much less pressure and money to be spent, so much more fun.

 

You're 100% right, and I almost feel like everyone else in this thread must have at least 7 to 10 years on us age-wise. This type of "dating" is much more fun, allows for more spontaneity, doesn't inherently disadvantage either gender, and is just less constraining in general.

 

I thought there was nothing wrong with finding a way to sidestep the "who pays?" nonsense, but the old coots in this thread seem to disagree.

[TheBigQuestion]

If you don't want to pay more than 40-50 bucks on a date with a woman you don't know yet,than meet for coffee or a cocktail.

 

Don't go to a lavish dinner. My boyfriend always insisted on paying for dates. My father always told me a man isn't a gentleman is he allows a woman to pay. I agree with him.

 

A man not being a gentlemen because he allows a woman to pay for dates is a completely arbitrary and useless social construct. In and of itself, it has no value and means nothing. It's no different than me saying "A woman who lets me pay obviously isn't a classy lady." Think about it. But then again, I don't expect you to disagree with a social convention that is deeply ingrained and primarily serves your interest.

[Allie32]

A man not being a gentlemen because he allows a woman to pay for dates is a completely arbitrary and useless social construct. In and of itself, it has no value and means nothing. It's no different than me saying "A woman who lets me pay obviously isn't a classy lady." Think about it. But then again, I don't expect you to disagree with a social convention that is deeply ingrained and primarily serves your interest.

 

A think a guy that pays shows just how classy he is.

[phillyfan]

Here's how I date with regard to splitting the bill:

 

If I know I am NOT going to want to see the guy again and he insists on paying, I won't let him. I'll insist on splitting.

 

If I know I am going to see the guy again and he insists on paying, I'll let him, and I'll treat him the next time.

 

If I go on a date with someone I am attracted to and want to see him again and he makes a big deal about splitting the bill- I'd never go out with him again. I'll always offer to split the bill, I always do. But the kind of guy that suggests the split is not second date material.

 

Dude this is wat i like, this is a classy chick. It aint about havin 2 spend money, its about 2 ppl decidin 2 do somethin nice, tht they both enjoy, n tht is usualy a nice meal out, a club, drinks, wateva, but that costs a few bucks. Hell so wat, as long as u liv in the moment, u wil enjoy the nite wether u see her again or not. U gota be chill wit these things.

 

And yea if the dude is all crazy about splittin the bill 1st date i think thats pretty cheap and a no class move.

[phillyfan]

Do you put effort into being dense or does it just come naturally?

 

The point I've been making throughout this whole thread is that the "dating" process can be sidestepped altogether and you can still wind up with whatever type of relationship you seek. That's all there is to it. The "who pays" issue never comes up in any dates for me, and therefore doesn't cause any tension, because I DON'T DATE in the traditional manner. Your attempts to guilt me into thinking there is something wrong with me because I have a different way of doing things than you do (and a way that works well) are pretty laughable. Much like your antiquated views on women with tattoos and tramp stamps, your views on relationships could use an update as well. That and your reading comprehension skills.

 

Dude wats up why u bein so angry? Date how u want, who cares - but i dont get why u r so obsesed with not payin nothin. I aint the richest dude on the planet but i pay 4 wat i enjoy, and i enjoy an evenin out with a cute girl, eatin good steak n sharin a drink or 2 wit her, wether or not i see her again, ill still enjoy tht stuff. If u really freakin about money n u dont have none, then just meet these girls for coffee.

[TheBigQuestion]

Dude wats up why u bein so angry? Date how u want, who cares - but i dont get why u r so obsesed with not payin nothin. I aint the richest dude on the planet but i pay 4 wat i enjoy, and i enjoy an evenin out with a cute girl, eatin good steak n sharin a drink or 2 wit her, wether or not i see her again, ill still enjoy tht stuff. If u really freakin about money n u dont have none, then just meet these girls for coffee.

 

I normally don't address posters who write with the grammar of a 5-year-old, but I'll humor you.

 

I'm not "angry" about paying or not paying. I'm "angry" about people being dense, failing to take into consideration what I'm actually saying, and missing the point of what I say entirely.

 

I'm not hurting in the money department. This thread is not about my bank account. It's about addressing what I believe is a useless social convention and ways to sidestep it. It's not motivated by anger. It's a genuine curiosity as to why this is perpetuated.

[Ginger Beer]

My father always told me a man isn't a gentleman is he allows a woman to pay. I agree with him.

 

lol no.

 

My dad told me once how before he met my mum, he took a woman out for a 2nd date and he said 'aren't you gonna pay this time?' and she said 'I'm saving to go to America' and he replied 'not on my money you're not' and left her there in the restaurant to pay the bill. :laugh:

 

My dad > her.

 

The funny thing is my dad is a practicing Christian and this is very out of character for him. He's not aggressive in the slightest.

[Mme. Chaucer]

If you are able to identify the following as an arbitrary and useless social construct:

 

A man not being a gentlemen because he allows a woman to pay for dates is a completely arbitrary and useless social construct. In and of itself, it has no value and means nothing.

 

Why can't you simply dismiss the "unfair social pressure" with the same facility?

 

society has unfairly pressured men into believing that dating cannot successfully occur without paying for a woman on said dates,

 

There are lots of us who have successfully thrown off all kinds of social pressures and come out of it able to be more true to ourselves.

 

Speaking for myself, it's kind of been my life's path to fly in the face of social conventions. I have & spend on our life together much more $ than my husband does. Still, your preoccupation with who pays does come off as rather small minded and indicative of insecurity, which most women I know, including myself, don't find attractive.

 

It's not worthy of much head space. And, just to save you the trouble of explaining to me how I don't know what it's like to be a guy - I also don't think most of the culturally accepted concerns of women in dating are worth much head space.

 

Live according to your own values and beliefs. People will respect you just for that. Trying to micromanage stuff, especially where many emotions are involved (like dating) is a losing proposition.