First date - should I pass on her for this?

[poppyfields]

To add to my previous post, when I am "not" into the guy and know I don't want to see him again, I will offer, almost insist on paying.

Just thought I'd clarify that, and I know many women who do the same.

[preraph]

I'd do almost anything to be able to be the one to pick the restaurant.  As long as I am able to do that at least 50 percent of the time (OR they are a really good picker), I can be more flexible about paying, but then I would also be cooking for them.  I think when first dating, you need to follow traditions.  Then if you become a couple, you work things out depending on how you both are.  If she never bakes cookies or cooks dinner for you, then it IS too one way and she should chip in sometimes and also help choose where to eat.  And if she never cooks, then she probably knows all the restaurants, something of a plus.  It's amazing how many people do not.  

 

If he both cooks and pays when you go out to eat, the woman should obviously be chipping in more heavily because he's doing it all.  You run into trouble because most women do not make as much $$ as most men and many just can't afford to eat out if they have to pay, but that's where you decide if you make a good couple or not.  If you can't work it out, you can't work it out.  I wouldn't want to give up eating out because my man was too broke or didn't want to spend money that way, because I love eating out.  But then again, I would be perfectly fine letting him eat a bologna sandwich for lunch while I went alone to my favorite restaurant, an option most women don't fully embrace.  

[FMW]

If it hasn't already been mentioned (sorry, haven't read all six pages of comments), the "who pays" issue has been discussed at length here on LS, not the least of which is in a specific thread dedicated to that topic.  Not all women see this issue the same, and not all men see it the same.

It all comes down to personal beliefs and preferences.  If someone doesn't appear to follow your own "rules" and it bothers you enough to start a thread about it, then there's a clear case of incompatibility.  So yes, OP, just next her, because it bothers YOU.   

[preraph]

Yes, it does seem to be the irresolvable quandry, doesn't it?  Truth is though, once people are into a relationship, unless they are on one extreme or the other on money, like from frivolous to miserly, they are somewhere in the middle and all this at the first few dates is just them standing on priciples they will have no choice but to relax once in an actual partnership.  Still, you need to not be with someone who is the polar opposite.  See "Two and a Half Men."

[Realitysux]

On a first date, I always offer to pay half the bill but if they take me up on it, I never call them or go out with them again. Men should pay on the first date. 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Realitysux

[some_username1]

21 hours ago, poppyfields said:

I may get beat up for saying this, but on a raw visceral level, the above quote gave me a chill, turned me on.

That is why when a man asks me out on a romantic date, *assuming I am into him*, I like him to pay, and why HE likes to pay.

Just my experience with the men I've dated including current. 

Sure I make my own money, so does he.

But this is romance, courtship if you will, and a man paying is very simply put, a turn on for many women, for the reason so eloquently stated in the above quote.

That is not to say I won't offer to buy us an after-dinner drink someplace else or dessert, I have but except for a few, they have declined my offer.

I had one man actually get insulted when I offered to pay!  I kid you not, he got insulted! 

I get what you guys are saying, about equality and all that, it makes sense logically, but romance and attraction are not logical, they're just not.

It's emotional, it's visceral, it's chemical, it's raw, its sexual.  If you're looking to make a "friend" fine, ask her to split. 

That said, I know there are women who will totally disagree with this and who actually prefer to pay, which is fine too! 

To each his own, whatever works.

Just offering a different perspective from the standard, "if she doesn't offer to pay, she's self-entitled" mentality. 

 

Eh, calling it an assertion of masculinity seems like describing a crowbar as a “an artifact with which one can gracefully open many portals”. It’s an effin’ crowbar, at the end of the day. I mean, ordering your drink and your meal for you would be an “assertion of masculinity”, would that turn you on in a visceral way too? No, it wouldn’t. Because deep down, way more than being about masculinity or whatever emperor’s new clothes our neo cortex wants to dress it up in, a woman’s lizard brain likes it because it’s a free dinner. It doesn’t cost her resources (who doesn’t like not having to use their money?) and it’s the man showing her can take care of her (whilst strangely not causing any cognitive dissonance with the woman’s perception of herself as a strong independent woman who can take care of herself- compartmentalisation at it’s finest :shrug:)

I’ve competed in a great many of these threads and it’s something that people never change their minds on, it’s literally that black and white (well, I saw a poster *once* decide that they had a change of heart and preferred to pay for themselves) and having seen how rancorous the matter is I agree that ultimately there is no right and wrong...but the mental gymnastics that are done to try and make the act of getting a free dinner seem far more noble than it actually is do need calling out I feel. It’s a free dinner and you enjoy getting them, that’s fine- own your choices.

Edited May 4, 2020 by some_username1

[poppyfields]

In response @username, I don't enjoy getting a "free" dinner; perhaps you missed it, but I clearly stated that, during the date, upon realizing I am not into the guy and won't be seeing him again, I will offer, almost to the point of insisting, on paying my own way. 

If my goal was a "free" dinner, I'd just let him pay, regardless.

I'm sorry you failed to understand my feelings about this controversial topic, based on my own personal experiences and the experiences of many women I know, however I do agree with you about one thing - there is no right or wrong. 

Edited May 4, 2020 by poppyfields

[Shining One]

22 hours ago, poppyfields said:

But this is romance, courtship if you will, and a man paying is very simply put, a turn on for many women, for the reason so eloquently stated in the above quote.

What percentage of women would you say react this way? I've paid for dates for dozens of different women over the years, probably close to a hundred by this point. I experienced a positive sexual reaction from only a small percentage of those.

22 hours ago, poppyfields said:

To add to my previous post, when I am "not" into the guy and know I don't want to see him again, I will offer, almost insist on paying.

Just thought I'd clarify that, and I know many women who do the same.

I know many women who don't. Those who offer /  insist on paying when they're not interested are a small percentage for me.

[Shining One]

22 hours ago, preraph said:

I'd do almost anything to be able to be the one to pick the restaurant.

I would say if you're the one treating, you're the one who gets to pick. Of course, I've dated quite a few women who insisted on picking despite not paying, so I wouldn't be surprised if men did that as well.

[poppyfields]

16 minutes ago, Shining One said:

What percentage of women would you say react this way? I've paid for dates for dozens of different women over the years, probably close to a hundred by this point. I experienced a positive sexual reaction from only a small percentage of those.

I know many women who don't. Those who offer /  insist on paying when they're not interested are a small percentage for me.

@Shining, paying for a date will "not" generate sexual attraction, that attraction must already be there.  When it's already there, paying then becomes a sort of extra turn on for reasons already stated.  I'm talking about first few dates. 

I don't know what percentage of women feel that way, I just know it's how I feel and many other women I associate with. 

As to those women who did not positively respond after you paid, sorry to say there was never any attraction to begin with. 

As to those women who don't offer to pay when not interested, "those" women would be considered self-entitled imo,  consider it a bullet dodged.

Edited May 4, 2020 by poppyfields

[preraph]

9 minutes ago, Shining One said:

I would say if you're the one treating, you're the one who gets to pick. Of course, I've dated quite a few women who insisted on picking despite not paying, so I wouldn't be surprised if men did that as well.

Well in the long term if it's important to both people it should be 50/50. With any luck you meet someone who likes the same kind of food you like. But if you happen to date someone who is the polar opposite then you are in trouble. Usually you can find one type of food you both like. Like there's no way I would want to go to a sushi or Thai place or poke place at all because there is literally nothing there I would eat. I'm allergic to some of the ingredients and I don't even know which ones and I don't like it to boot. So I probably wouldn't agree to go to one of those places unless I just wasn't hungry, so that would just be a bad match, as would a vegan..

[CaliforniaGirl]

Just out of curiosity, are you planning on paying for half of the birth control?

[CaliforniaGirl]

On 3/12/2020 at 12:57 PM, CautiouslyOptimistic said:

She didn't offer to do what you felt you were owed?  

 

 

Now here is a really, really interesting point even though I think it was facetious. I don't think I've ever seen a man complain about paying for the dinner if he got sex afterward. Any comment on this regard, OP? Or does it not enter into it?

[CaliforniaGirl]

On 3/13/2020 at 11:05 AM, some_username1 said:

Exactly! If we want to stick to traditional values and men are expected to pay for dates then fine, let.’s pay men more money per hour to account for the ‘date tax’, but you try floating that idea in this day and age

Men already get paid more per hour so...obviously one way or another it floats. In this day and age.

Edited May 7, 2020 by CaliforniaGirl

[MaleIntuition]

1 hour ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

Now here is a really, really interesting point even though I think it was facetious. I don't think I've ever seen a man complain about paying for the dinner if he got sex afterward. Any comment on this regard, OP? Or does it not enter into it?

This transactional argument and view on relationship is such a turn off. 

[Malin889]

Why are we having this conversation again?? You are the man and you offered to take her out, so you should pay and not even make it a second thought about her not paying. How old are you? 
 

 

[CaliforniaGirl]

2 hours ago, MaleIntuition said:

This transactional argument and view on relationship is such a turn off. 

Yes, it is. And it's amazingly hypocritical since "the principle of the thing" seems to instantly disappear if the date puts out. That's why I'm asking the OP. Is it because she didn't sleep with you? Would the fried rice and a drink debt have been forgiven if she'd paid for it in trade? How about if it was a handie? Would that have covered just the rice but she'd still have to buy her own drink? Is there a playbook for all this?

I wish some hypocrites that always seem to have plenty to say on threads like these would lay off the "you women asked for it by demanding equality" stuff when some only seem to hold to this "principle" if they're left high and dry after all that major effort buying some tacos. There's even a post on this thread giving instructions of how much the woman should pay depending upon how quickly she put out - first date, second date, etc. 

And that all just kinda sullied the whole "but it's because of the quality the woman is showing and because of women's equality and etc." arguments I so often see on threads like these.

Not all men are like this, not by a long shot.  Thank God. In fact I've only ever seemed to encounter them on the internet for some reason.

But it's kind of a pet peeve of mine that those who.so think this way, run and hide behind "blah blah equality blah blah you asked for it, you got it, blah blah it's the principle of the thing" to hide the fact that they're really just annoyed that they paid money...and yet sex didn't happen. I mean...what was all that about "entitlement" again, guys?

Edited May 7, 2020 by CaliforniaGirl

[MaleIntuition]

41 minutes ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

Yes, it is. And it's amazingly hypocritical since "the principle of the thing" seems to instantly disappear if the date puts out. That's why I'm asking the OP. Is it because she didn't sleep with you? Would the fried rice and a drink debt have been forgiven if she'd paid for it in trade? How about if it was a handie? Would that have covered just the rice but she'd still have to buy her own drink? Is there a playbook for all this?

I wish some hypocrites that always seem to have plenty to say on threads like these would lay off the "you women asked for it by demanding equality" stuff when some only seem to hold to this "principle" if they're left high and dry after all that major effort buying some tacos. There's even a post on this thread giving instructions of how much the woman should pay depending upon how quickly she put out - first date, second date, etc. 

And that all just kinda sullied the whole "but it's because of the quality the woman is showing and because of women's equality and etc." arguments I so often see on threads like these.

Not all men are like this, not by a long shot.  Thank God. In fact I've only ever seemed to encounter them on the internet for some reason.

But it's kind of a pet peeve of mine that those who.so think this way, run and hide behind "blah blah equality blah blah you asked for it, you got it, blah blah it's the principle of the thing" to hide the fact that they're really just annoyed that they paid money...and yet sex didn't happen. I mean...what was all that about "entitlement" again, guys?

If you are under the impression that I was agreeing with you, you are mistaken. This is a textbook straw-man argument. You are the one that brought up sex. OPs was clearly asking for advice related to whether or not this was a red flag. Had he only been looking for sex; he wouldn’t have cared about red flags.

You are the one that seems to regard sex as something that is given to men (ie transactional). That’s what I find off putting. 

I don’t “get” sex. I have sex. And I don’t pay for women’s attention.

[CaliforniaGirl]

45 minutes ago, MaleIntuition said:

If you are under the impression that I was agreeing with you, you are mistaken. This is a textbook straw-man argument. You are the one that brought up sex. OPs was clearly asking for advice related to whether or not this was a red flag. Had he only been looking for sex; he wouldn’t have cared about red flags.

You are the one that seems to regard sex as something that is given to men (ie transactional). That’s what I find off putting. 

I don’t “get” sex. I have sex. And I don’t pay for women’s attention.

Don't be offended. And, no, I'm not the one who brought up sex. It was referenced back on this specific thread. But come on...it's being "coyly" referenced all over the place...investment...she "just" went home...and on and on. It's fine if you personally do not feel this way but again, if you don't, there's no need to take it personally. this is something I have seen over and over again, it always winds up coming up in threads about "paying for" dates...and as I said it was on this one way before I chimed in, literally with a scorecard of how many dates to pay to get to the sex and when to make her pay if there hasn't been sex. 

As I said, most men I know don't feel this way. I only seem to see this scorecard thing come up on the internet. And yes, it is they who regard it as giving/taking. You're slanting my words a bit because you're offended but if this doesn't apply to you, there's no need to be, right?

 

45 minutes ago, MaleIntuition said:

If you are under the impression that I was agreeing with you, you are mistaken. This is a textbook straw-man argument. You are the one that brought up sex. OPs was clearly asking for advice related to whether or not this was a red flag. Had he only been looking for sex; he wouldn’t have cared about red flags.

You are the one that seems to regard sex as something that is given to men (ie transactional). That’s what I find off putting. 

I don’t “get” sex. I have sex. And I don’t pay for women’s attention.

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by CaliforniaGirl

[CaliforniaGirl]

On 5/3/2020 at 9:40 AM, poppyfields said:

To add to my previous post, when I am "not" into the guy and know I don't want to see him again, I will offer, almost insist on paying.

Just thought I'd clarify that, and I know many women who do the same.

Ouch, I hate to say this but...me too. I would insist on paying my half even if the guy was adamant, if I knew I wasn't interested in him. I am not sure why but letting him pay would have kind of felt like leading him on. Probably just some outdated more/convention or something. 

[poppyfields]

7 minutes ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

Ouch, I hate to say this but...me too. I would insist on paying my half even if the guy was adamant, if I knew I wasn't interested in him. I am not sure why but letting him pay would have kind of felt like leading him on. Probably just some outdated more/convention or something. 

For me it was more about not feeling guilty afterwards for allowing a guy to spend his hard earned money on a woman who had absolutely zero interest in him.

Total self-interest on my part, I hate feeling guilt!  

Edited May 7, 2020 by poppyfields

[CaliforniaGirl]

9 minutes ago, poppyfields said:

For me it was more about not feeling guilty afterwards for allowing a guy to spend his hard earned money on a woman who had absolutely zero interest in him.

Total self-interest on my part, I hate feeling guilt!  

Reaching back into my memory bank...I feel like it used to be kind of a code we all followed...like, a way to say "not interested" without humiliating the person. Again, could have just been an old-fashioned thing that was dying out even then.

[MaleIntuition]

35 minutes ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

Don't be offended. And, no, I'm not the one who brought up sex. It was referenced back on this specific thread. But come on...it's being "coyly" referenced all over the place...investment...she "just" went home...and on and on. It's fine if you personally do not feel this way but again, if you don't, there's no need to take it personally. this is something I have seen over and over again, it always winds up coming up in threads about "paying for" dates...and as I said it was on this one way before I chimed in, literally with a scorecard of how many dates to pay to get to the sex and when to make her pay if there hasn't been sex. 

As I said, most men I know don't feel this way. I only seem to see this scorecard thing come up on the internet. And yes, it is they who regard it as giving/taking. You're slanting my words a bit because you're offended but if this doesn't apply to you, there's no need to be, right?

 

 

Could we perhaps not use childish argumentation technique (first straw manning and now the looks-like-I-hit-a-nerve” stuffs)? 

You can not just simply assume that this particular OP wasn’t looking for something long term. It’s just projecting at that point. It’s not hypocritical to not wanting to date high maintenance / entitled women. 

[CaliforniaGirl]

3 minutes ago, MaleIntuition said:

Could we perhaps not use childish argumentation technique (first straw manning and now the looks-like-I-hit-a-nerve” stuffs)? 

You can not just simply assume that this particular OP wasn’t looking for something long term. It’s just projecting at that point. It’s not hypocritical to not wanting to date high maintenance / entitled women. 

Huh??? For the third time...that's why I was asking *him*. Asking. I wasn't even talking to you, or about you when I made my initial post with that question. I don't even know who you are. You ARE taking this personally. I'm still waiting to the OP's answer to my *question*. I hope this makes things clearer. I will wait to hear back from the OP.

[MaleIntuition]

6 minutes ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

Huh??? For the third time...that's why I was asking *him*. Asking. I wasn't even talking to you, or about you when I made my initial post with that question. I don't even know who you are. You ARE taking this personally. I'm still waiting to the OP's answer to my *question*. I hope this makes things clearer. I will wait to hear back from the OP.

Sigh. Your questions was rhetorical at best (somewhat less clear when you edit your posts thoug). OP hasn’t been her for a month or so.          

This is the part I was commenting on, and strongly disagreeing with:

5 hours ago, MaleIntuition said:

I don't think I've ever seen a man complain about paying for the dinner if he got sex afterward.

This is not a question, but a statement. And the mindset behind this statement (that is; your mindset) seems to be of the transactional idea of sex. As in; sex is a currency - like money - that can be given.