Doesn't Offer to Split Check

[some_username1]

Dude, you're picking on the wrong person here. I think LBH is pretty much saying exactly that...

 

 

If you stop assuming that people are disagreeing with you just because of their gender, and actually read their post, you may find that the "gender lines" here are not anywhere near what you think they are.

 

Wow, that went straight over your head!

 

I was agreeing with her (why else would I say "interesting point"?) point and turning it into a joke on how a man can't expect sex without being judged (rightly so) but a woman can expect free food and people shouldn't judge because she's just 'traditional'.

[some_username1]

some_username1: Of course I'm happy to pay my own share as soon as I've ascertained that the man in question is not a suitable match for me (this is all but a given if he allows me to pay my own way) - and no, I wouldn't think less of him. But it's not an "offer" to pay on the premise of accepting or establishing gender equality as the foundation for a potential relationship. It's an executive DECISION to pay, with the intention of not seeing him again - because his approach to male/female relations and gender roles is not compatible with mine.

 

Maybe he's a really wonderful guy who will make some feminist over-the-moon-happy, but he's not for me and I'm not for him. Simple as that.

 

Yes, this wait-and-see snap-judgment approach would disqualify the vast majority of men if applied wholesale to modern dating. It would also be very expensive for me, which is a big part of why I've mostly kept out of the broader dating pool and stuck to entertaining the romantic advances of men who I already know and who have already demonstrated an inclination toward my preferred courtship dynamic.

 

For me personally that would bother me- as your attraction is conditional on him paying for you, that's what I was trying to get at: are you expecting not to pay and if you do have to are you happy to and will it affect your opinion (attraction) of him?

 

I think it's a bit bleak and depressing personally if attraction is so heavily contingent on whether someone pays on a first date. It's reducing someone's whole personality down to a binary decision of whether they pay regardless of whether they may be perfect in all other areas. I'm sure most would be disgusted if a man said that his attraction is affected if a girl won't put out on the first date *sigh*.

 

But you like what you like I guess, and everyone absolutely deserves the right to have attraction dealbreakers- so good luck to you!

 

EDIT: Out of interest, do you warn guys that you are uber-traditional when it comes to paying? Or is it considered almost like 'cheating' if they know because they might pay when they otherwise wouldn't? The alternative, waiting to see what they do at the end if they don't know how important it is to you kinda feels like a test which is a bit...ugh.

Edited June 18, 2019 by some_username1

[Kitty Tantrum]

No, no, no. Attraction and compatibility are two entirely different things. You seem to be suggesting that it's inconceivable for a woman to walk away from a man she's attracted to on the grounds that she doesn't think he'd be good for her in the long run.

 

RE: warning - no, I don't issue warnings. I'm pretty candid about answering questions that are specifically asked of me, but for the most part I've learned through experience that it's safer to assess the way people behave of their own accord, without my input. It's not a "test" any more than ANY part of a date is a "test" for compatibility. Why go on the date at all, really, if every aspect of compatibility can and ought to be hammered out beforehand?

 

I want a guy who pays because it's important to him.

 

If I laid it out as an expectation, I'd have all sorts of guys scooping up the check on the first date who otherwise wouldn't, just because I'm pretty and they want a chance. I'd absolutely be sabotaging my own efforts to assess the preferences of the men in question - and I'd be wasting a lot of THEIR money in the process (how many dates would they pay for before the lack of compatibility became apparent regardless? I dunno). I definitely wouldn't feel good about that.

[Curiousroxy86]

I agree that it's best for incompatibilities to be discovered early. As for the actual delineation of responsibilities, that's not in debate. It's the offering to contribute that's in debate. As I mentioned earlier, I offer to contribute as a matter of politeness, even in situations in which I know my offer will be turned down. This goes beyond dating.

 

But the offer to contribute is the willingness to go dutch if asked for some and the willingness to reciprocate down the road for some..

[elaine567]

I think it's a bit bleak and depressing personally if attraction is so heavily contingent on whether someone pays on a first date. It's reducing someone's whole personality down to a binary decision of whether they pay regardless of whether they may be perfect in all other areas.

 

Its only bleak and depressing if you are a guy who doesn't pay for first dates...

Plenty dealbreakers occur on first dates, many women get spurned for a lot less.

Men usually need to flash their financial credentials.

Many women will not be impressed by a guy who invites her on a date and then demands she pay her share.

Etiquette dictates "If you invite, you pay.", so whilst sharing the bill may be OK if you are both poor students, I would guess most adult women looking for a life partner need to see some evidence of his ability to look after her and their potential children.

If he falls at the first hurdle then so be it...

 

Older women who grew up with men paying are definitely not going to be impressed by a guy she perceives as a cheapskate... neither are women whose cultures dictate that men pay.

[some_username1]

Its only bleak and depressing if you are a guy who doesn't pay for first dates...

Plenty dealbreakers occur on first dates, many women get spurned for a lot less.

Men usually need to flash their financial credentials.

Many women will not be impressed by a guy who invites her on a date and then demands she pay her share.

Etiquette dictates "If you invite, you pay.", so whilst sharing the bill may be OK if you are both poor students, I would guess most adult women looking for a life partner need to see some evidence of his ability to look after her and their potential children.

If he falls at the first hurdle then so be it...

 

Older women who grew up with men paying are definitely not going to be impressed by a guy she perceives as a cheapskate... neither are women whose cultures dictate that men pay.

 

And they say romance isn't dead

[alphamale]

And they say romance isn't dead

 

Hollywood is still making rom-coms

[elaine567]

Romance rarely involves splitting the bill...

[Curiousroxy86]

Would it be considered rude that a guy kiss me without asking on the first date?

[alphamale]

Would it be considered rude that a guy kiss me without asking on the first date?

 

a man should never ask if it's ok to kiss his date, it should be obvious either way

[Michelle ma Belle]

I went on a date with a gentleman (47) a while back. He pursued me relentlessly. I finally accepted.

 

We went out for a drink (I never do more than just a drink on first dates).

 

Conversation flowed effortlessly and despite the fact I hadn't really made up my mind about how I really felt about him yet, as far as first dates go, it was pretty good.

 

The bill arrived.

 

It was $9.00.

 

He told me to "just put down $5" and he'd cover the tip.

 

Thanks.

 

Huge turn off.

[Curiousroxy86]

I personally don’t see it as rude alpha (with context) but let them tell it...

 

A woman not offering on the first date is rude and entitled because

A) she don’t know if the guy subscribes to the same ideals as her

B) she assumes the guy is okay with it or atleast won’t say no

C) she shouldn’t think of herself more highly than she ought to because she is just a stranger to the guy

 

So I am curious. Do they think a guy kissing a girl without asking to be considered rude/entitled?

 

Or does the rude and entitlement claim only apply to people who dont offer to pay their own way on the first date?

[littleblackheart]

Romance rarely involves splitting the bill...

 

Romance doesn't involve plowing through hundreds of profiles of random people online either, yet here we are...

[Michelle ma Belle]

I personally don’t see it as rude alpha (with context) but let them tell it...

 

A woman not offering on the first date is rude and entitled because

A) she don’t know if the guy subscribes to the same ideals as her

B) she assumes the guy is okay with it or atleast won’t say no

C) she shouldn’t think of herself more highly than she ought to because she is just a stranger to the guy

 

So I am curious. Do they think a guy kissing a girl without asking to be considered rude/entitled?

 

Or does the rude and entitlement claim only apply to people who dont offer to pay their own way on the first date?

 

Offering is one thing, taking her up on it is another.

 

If a guy asks for the first date and chooses to go balls out where he's dropping a hefty penny all in an effort to impress her, that's on HIM and therefore should pay for it.

 

Don't want to spend a lot of money on someone you're not sure about yet, then keep it simple as well as cheap enough that you can afford a few dates a week if need be.

 

This really isn't difficult.

 

If a girl isn't impressed that you didn't wine and dine her then I suppose that says a lot about HER, doesn't it?

 

 

 

One of the best first dates I had was coffee by the lake. It was one of those amazing summer evenings and he suggested we meet down by the lake while he went and picked up a couple of coffees for us. So simple yet thoughtful. Anyone can sit in a cafe or bar and grab a drink. It cost him under $5 and we couldn't have been happier.

[Kitty Tantrum]

Romance is a lousy foundation for a long-term relationship/marriage anyway.

 

Given how easy it is to foster romance and passion in even the LEAST sustainable of situations, you'd think people would wise up and quit using them as the yardstick by which to measure the wisdom of their relationship choices.

 

I wouldn't decline a second date with a guy because having to pay my way on the first one "turned me off" or "killed the romance." To be honest I would never go into a first date with a strange man expecting anything but anxiety. But I don't care if he sweeps me off my feet in every other way - I'd decline the second date on the grounds that I'm looking for a man to MARRY, and that man will not be a man who expects me to have my own money to keep up with his lifestyle.

 

I devote as much time to making money as I absolutely must to cover the barest of expenses. Beyond that, I don't want to have much of anything to do with it. It's how I have chosen to live my life since I was old enough to think, and anybody who has a problem with that is welcome to not waste their time and money trying to date me.

 

Even those who try, though - it's not like I've ever been mean or confrontational. I've been told I'm great company. I don't think I've ever been on a first date where the guy didn't want a second date. Again, I haven't been on a ton of dates - but it's something. It's not like I'm schmoozing up to a guy as soon as he pulls his wallet, out and treating him coldly if he asks me to pay. No, I'm going to be my pleasant, polite, cordial self either way (and probably give him a kiss on the cheek if he's well-mannered and I had a good time). And then gently, politely decline the second invitation.

 

He got to enjoy a pleasant date, and if he asks me to pay, I will. Literally the only reason I can imagine for a guy to get worked up over it is if HE feels entitled to my company again in the future, on his terms - even though those terms are unfavorable or burdensome to me.

 

In a world where the courtship rulebook has been thrown out in favor of Calvinball-style dating, it's silly to grouse about other people's assumptions and expectations being different from your own. Just ask your server for separate checks, or tell the thots to pay their half, and accept that this will narrow your pool of options.

 

Shrug.

[some_username1]

Romance rarely involves splitting the bill...

 

Just like you never see a feminist in a house fire

[some_username1]

Romance doesn't involve plowing through hundreds of profiles of random people online either, yet here we are...

 

Touché (10 chars)

[some_username1]

Romance is a lousy foundation for a long-term relationship/marriage anyway.....

 

Interesting perspective, I am really trying to empathise with it as I can usually appreciate other people's argument even if I don't agree with it but I really struggle with this because it's counter to everything I was taught when growing up. Paying your way is core tenet where I come from...which is probably why it's a subject that I spend most of my posts debating on here

 

Ironically it's not like I'm limiting my options because I am the kind of guy that *does* pay for meals- I just want to see an end to the 'pay to play' mindset that the way to a woman's heart is through our wallets. There should be more to dating, especially in this day and age when women aspire to be CEO's rather than Stepford Wives.

 

But hey, "some people tell me I'm a dreamer..." etc

Edited June 19, 2019 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[Curiousroxy86]

Well atleast you admit your desire to want to change the world...

 

I gave that futile dream up long time ago me personally

[elaine567]

Just like you never see a feminist in a house fire

What does that mean?

[Woggle]

What does that mean?

 

It means that some women are feminists when it is convienient. They have a term called cafeteria Catholics and there are also cafeteria feminists. Men have similar double standards so don't think I am focusing just on the women. It is a new era and both genders need to make adjustments.

[elaine567]

We had had a huge brush/grass fire not far from our house last year that got totally out of control. The majority of the firefighters were women.

[Kitty Tantrum]

I really struggle with this because it's counter to everything I was taught when growing up.

 

It's counter to everything I was taught when I was growing up, too. I find that the majority of my most deeply-held views are the ones that have grown IN SPITE OF what I was taught as a kid, based on what I've observed to actually be good for me.

 

Ironically it's not like I'm limiting my options because I am the kind of guy that *does* pay for meals- I just want to see an end to the 'pay to play' mindset that the way to a woman's heart is through our wallets.

That's fair - "pay to play" is not a mindset I've ever espoused. I've never suggested that the man has to pay anything; I've said more than once, I think, that free dates are fine by me - just that if he invites me out to do something that costs money, declines to tell me upfront that we'll be going dutch (pretty sure lots of guys prefer not to be explicit about this because they know fewer women will accept the invitation), but expects me to pay at the end, that's a disqualification on principle. I also think I already mentioned that the men I've actually been in relationships with have all gotten close to me without the need to spend money on me or even "date" me at all. They put in the TIME.

 

There should be more to dating, especially in this day and age when women aspire to be CEO's rather than Stepford Wives.

 

But hey, "some people tell me I'm a dreamer..." etc

CEO/Stepford Wife is a false dichotomy, and neither would be a reasonable aspiration for the vast majority of women anyway.

 

And just because there ARE women in this day and age who aspire to be CEO's, that does not oblige ME as an individual woman to buy into that model - or ANY model which dictates that women are SUPPOSED to be financially independent. No thank you, sir. Yes, there are millions of women out there who would rather have their own money than a good husband - take your pick, take your number, take your turn. I'm not one of them, and any man who wants to treat me like I ought to take personal responsibility for the actions and ideologies of my feminist foremothers can kiss off.

[some_username1]

It means that some women are feminists when it is convienient. They have a term called cafeteria Catholics and there are also cafeteria feminists. Men have similar double standards so don't think I am focusing just on the women. It is a new era and both genders need to make adjustments.

 

Yep, to be absolutely explicit it means you won't find an ardent feminist telling a man that "women and children first" is sexist when she is trapped in a house fire.

 

Or, to use another trite phrase: Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

[basil67]

Yep, to be absolutely explicit it means you won't find an ardent feminist telling a man that "women and children first" is sexist when she is trapped in a house fire.

 

This is silly. Mum and dad work together to get the kids and pets out of there - saving a family is not about gender.

 

Also, this feminist gets up to investigate the Things That Go Bump in the Night. Hubby sleeps through everything. Your broad generalisations make you look foolish.

Edited June 18, 2019 by basil67