I ended up paying more than him on a first date...is that a big no no?

[RedDevil66]

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say the women in this thread who have this need to be catered to by men have never been truly independent. And I say catered cause this is not about chivalry. Chivalry is opening doors etc.

 

I have my own home, lift my own heavy stuff, pay ALL my expenses and take care of me

When I met my BF, he would asked me to meet him to watch games etc and he would pay a round, I would pay a round even though he was adamant to pay the entire bill.

Why would I want a man to pay for everything if I make my own money?

 

Sure, it's AWESOME when someone takes you out and offers to buy you dinner, but it feels awesome to the man to be spoiled as well.

 

Having said this, my BF is old school and he likes to pay when we go out, but then I make it up in cooking him many dinners and buying him wonderful gifts.

 

And I need to say this, I can see why some men dislike women when they play these head games. EXHAUSTING!

[counterman]

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say the women in this thread who have this need to be catered to by men have never been truly independent. And I say catered cause this is not about chivalry. Chivalry is opening doors etc.

 

I have my own home, lift my own heavy stuff, pay ALL my expenses and take care of me

When I met my BF, he would asked me to meet him to watch games etc and he would pay a round, I would pay a round even though he was adamant to pay the entire bill.

Why would I want a man to pay for everything if I make my own money?

 

Sure, it's AWESOME when someone takes you out and offers to buy you dinner, but it feels awesome to the man to be spoiled as well.

 

Having said this, my BF is old school and he likes to pay when we go out, but then I make it up in cooking him many dinners and buying him wonderful gifts.

 

And I need to say this, I can see why some men dislike women when they play these head games. EXHAUSTING!

 

I agree with this. Some of my friends hate it when guys would insist on paying especially if they are employed. Some feel insulted when a guy makes a snide comment like "guys always pay" and others feel guilty. Some do enjoy being treated but, you're right, guys like being treated to.

 

I know that if some guys don't see a girl at least attempt to reach into her purse when the bill comes, there will be no next date.

[BWLoca]

I agree that if the OP wants to kick him to the curb, then she has the perfect right to do so. The pure awkwardness of it all would've turned me off. I like an assertive guy.

 

Personally, I feel the guy should pay for the first date, but I don't sit there and pretend that I'm actually going to go for my purse. If I do, it'll be to pay for my portion only. But it's also fine to me if the bill is split.

[flc]

For me, being in my 50s, it is a bit interesting. I date women who grew up during the late 60s and 70s and some are very femanist oriented while others are very old school.

 

Myself, I was taught to be gentlemen, that is open doors for ladies, pay for dinner and enjoy the company of a beautiful women. On some occasions I have gotten the evil eye when I open the car door and even had one date tell me that women do not need mens help anymore.

 

I think the whole femanist mantra of women should be treated exactly like men is sad. The differences between men and women and the respect that you show these differences is what make life enjoyable.

[meerkat stew]

The way people try to define "equality" is ridiculous.

 

Equality is equal treatment under the law and socially. If a man and a woman each have five $50 average costs first dates in a year, and the social expectation is that the man pays for all of them, this is the equivalent of an annual $250 "dating tax" on men, and a $250 "dating tax credit" for women, amounting to a $500 net inequity that is entirely zero sum for an entire gender. Now since you claim that the way people define "equality" is ridiculous, why don't -you- come up with a definition of equality that accommodates this $500 inequity and leaves the genders "equal" where dating is concerned.

 

The day you are all cool with a man hauling off and clocking a woman because she's annoying him at the bar, the day you are fine with seeing a woman struggle to carry something heavy while the physically able bodied man just sits there and doesn't bother to help? THEN you can talk about equality.

 

Hauling off and clocking anyone, male or female, by anyone, male or female, will land the "clocker" in jail (though the woman will get less/no jail time, that's for another thread). This is "equality" under the law. No one is "cool" with anyone punching anyone.

 

And what's your point anyway? It looks just as bad when someone refuses to help a helpless old man as it does a helpless old woman.

 

Besides that, your whole argument is a non sequitur, just because genders may be treated unequally in certain respects due to immutable physical characteristics doesn't justify unequal treatment in other ways.

[hoping2heal]

Equality is equal treatment under the law and socially. If a man and a woman each have five $50 average costs first dates in a year, and the social expectation is that the man pays for all of them, this is the equivalent of an annual $250 "dating tax" on men, and a $250 "dating tax credit" for women, amounting to a $500 net inequity that is entirely zero sum for an entire gender. Now since you claim that the way people define "equality" is ridiculous, why don't -you- come up with a definition of equality that accommodates this $500 inequity and leaves the genders "equal" where dating is concerned.

 

Is anyone here really trying to define equality the way you just said? NOPE. That was my POINT. Everyone was like "well gee I am going to pay for my own damn ****, I want to be equal in my RS."

 

All I said was, come on now; that isn't what makes you an "equal"

 

 

Hauling off and clocking anyone, male or female, by anyone, male or female, will land the "clocker" in jail (though the woman will get less/no jail time, that's for another thread). This is "equality" under the law. No one is "cool" with anyone punching anyone.

 

Yes, I think I pointed out in my post someone would use this argument. That said, I agree you will go to jail, no one is cool with it blah blah blah but admit it, no matter how wrong or how much it offends you to watch a man hit a man, you are more offended when you see a man hit a woman.

 

And what's your point anyway? It looks just as bad when someone refuses to help a helpless old man as it does a helpless old woman.

 

Besides that, your whole argument is a non sequitur, just because genders may be treated unequally in certain respects due to immutable physical characteristics doesn't justify unequal treatment in other ways.

 

My point was that no matter how much bickering that goes on, there will always be things that are socially a different standard because we are women. Yes of coure, same goes for the elderly, the handicap, etc.

 

There are women that take this as offensive and think it is insulting and means that men look at us in an inferior way.

Edited January 20, 2010 by hoping2heal

[donnamaybe]

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say the women in this thread who have this need to be catered to by men have never been truly independent. And I say catered cause this is not about chivalry. Chivalry is opening doors etc.

 

I have my own home, lift my own heavy stuff, pay ALL my expenses and take care of me

When I met my BF, he would asked me to meet him to watch games etc and he would pay a round, I would pay a round even though he was adamant to pay the entire bill.

Why would I want a man to pay for everything if I make my own money?

 

Sure, it's AWESOME when someone takes you out and offers to buy you dinner, but it feels awesome to the man to be spoiled as well.

 

Having said this, my BF is old school and he likes to pay when we go out, but then I make it up in cooking him many dinners and buying him wonderful gifts.

 

And I need to say this, I can see why some men dislike women when they play these head games. EXHAUSTING!

 

I agree with all of this post. Perfect!

[conehead]

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say the women in this thread who have this need to be catered to by men have never been truly independent. And I say catered cause this is not about chivalry. Chivalry is opening doors etc.

 

I have my own home, lift my own heavy stuff, pay ALL my expenses and take care of me

When I met my BF, he would asked me to meet him to watch games etc and he would pay a round, I would pay a round even though he was adamant to pay the entire bill.

Why would I want a man to pay for everything if I make my own money?

 

Sure, it's AWESOME when someone takes you out and offers to buy you dinner, but it feels awesome to the man to be spoiled as well.

 

Having said this, my BF is old school and he likes to pay when we go out, but then I make it up in cooking him many dinners and buying him wonderful gifts.

 

And I need to say this, I can see why some men dislike women when they play these head games. EXHAUSTING!

 

 

I agree with the above in bold, so why are you arguing against chivalry!! I'm the same way, I can pay my own pay and I do have ex bfs where I insist on paying by the 3rd date and insist on paying at times thereafter. BUT I do still like to know that my guy is generous enough to WANT to pay for me eventhough he doesnt have to! You said your bf is oldschool! Come back and argue once you find another bf who is not old school and does the slow wallet thing and would rather you pay instead or split....

[dreamergrl]

If you had such an issue with it, you shouldn't have went for your purse and then refuse when he offered to split it. How is he suppose to read your mind and know what you want? People are very different these days on who pays. There's no set rule. Further more, why should he pay if you don't want a second date? To me, and it's JMO, that's like asking for hand outs.

[GAchasen]

Don't assume... It is not my place to tell women what they should do. Actually, I think men should pay on all first dates...whether or not they asked. If they don't, I don't consider them to be cheap....more like disrespectful. That was the way I was raised. I don't need a man to pay for me but I think it shows good character if he does.

[hoping2heal]

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say the women in this thread who have this need to be catered to by men have never been truly independent. And I say catered cause this is not about chivalry. Chivalry is opening doors etc.

 

I have my own home, lift my own heavy stuff, pay ALL my expenses and take care of me

When I met my BF, he would asked me to meet him to watch games etc and he would pay a round, I would pay a round even though he was adamant to pay the entire bill.

Why would I want a man to pay for everything if I make my own money?

 

Sure, it's AWESOME when someone takes you out and offers to buy you dinner, but it feels awesome to the man to be spoiled as well.

 

Having said this, my BF is old school and he likes to pay when we go out, but then I make it up in cooking him many dinners and buying him wonderful gifts.

 

And I need to say this, I can see why some men dislike women when they play these head games. EXHAUSTING!

 

Guess not. I pay all of my own bills, all of my own expenses. There are many things a man could do FOR me that I don't have a problem doing for myself wether it is related to vehcile maintenance, home repair, the like.

 

My partner is also old school and likes to pay for things, and I do lots of nice surprises for him and the like.

 

Then again, I also don't see why wanting one that pays on the first date equals a man catering to a woman either.

[conehead]

If you had such an issue with it, you shouldn't have went for your purse and then refuse when he offered to split it. How is he suppose to read your mind and know what you want? People are very different these days on who pays. There's no set rule. Further more, why should he pay if you don't want a second date? To me, and it's JMO, that's like asking for hand outs.

 

I would have gone on a second date had he just paid. I didnt want the second date because he did not pay.

 

 

 

TO EVERYONE: How about this? I want a guy who is assertive and just pays despite. This dude was not that guy, thus I don't want to date him. He did nothing wrong as he was not obligated to pay, but he was just cheap/ungentlemanly by MY STANDARDS and the standards of alot of people on this thread as well it seems. MOST other guys I've dated has just paid, thus this guy is just an exception so no big deal. He just needs to find a girl who doesn't mind his behavior. Ok, how is that? case closed.

[hoping2heal]

I would have gone on a second date had he just paid. I didnt want the second date because he did not pay.

 

 

 

TO EVERYONE: How about this? I want a guy who is assertive and just pays despite. This dude was not that guy, thus I don't want to date him. He did nothing wrong as he was not obligated to pay, but he was just cheap/ungentlemanly by MY STANDARDS and the standards of alot of people on this thread as well it seems. MOST other guys I've dated has just paid, thus this guy is just an exception so no big deal. He just needs to find a girl who doesn't mind his behavior. Ok, how is that? case closed.

 

 

I think it sounds good.

[dreamergrl]

I would have gone on a second date had he just paid. I didnt want the second date because he did not pay.

Why would he want to take you on a second date, and pay again, when you don't have interest? Obviously you didn't other wise you wouldn't be ignoring him over this. Again, how is a guy suppose to read your mind and know?

 

There's so many women who don't like the guy to pay. Maybe he's been out with a few of those women and wasn't sure. But you're not looking at it as anything but he's cheap. Even though you straight out denied his offer to at least split it.

[meerkat stew]

I agree with the above in bold, so why are you arguing against chivalry!!

 

First of all, "chivalry" doesn't exist, and hasn't for hundreds of years. Trying to take that archaic term and apply it to modern life doesn't work. It is the equivalent of calling a group of homeless people "peasants." They aren't peasants because there have not been any peasants since the age of feudalism. Chivalry is a very specific concept that has been co-opted by media in modern times as a euphemism for some nebulous standard for treating women, and is poor usage because no one can define clearly what it means.

 

It remains in use in this way because it fits nicely with many women's "prince charming" fantasies. It's great to have fantasies, we all have fantasies. The difference between male and female fantasies is that men instinctively know that we aren't going to wake up with Pam Anderson in our bed, yet somehow this same voice of reason has not spoken to many women who still live in the clouds of some chivalrous prince charming romance novel fantasy. Think I'm overgeneralizing? Get back to me when the next "None of the men I meet are giving me that 'butterfly' feeling" thread is posted here, will probably be sometime this week.

 

Moreover, let's look at that other euphemistic term that supposedly describes the desired male conduct, "gentleman." This word also has a very specific, historical meaning of class distinction between someone who exists on inherited wealth from estates and someone who works for a living. In essence, aristocrats versus working class. Yet it has also been co-opted by middlebrow media as meaning some nebulous "nice" treatment of women. Also poor usage because no one can define it.

 

Both of these terms are just flowery window dressing on the concept that men should be socially obligated to defer to, and give money to women. The reason these terms are in use is that stripped of window dressing, the transactions of paying for dates look a whole lot like another easily definable word that does continue to have a very specific meaning, "prostitution." "I am paying for the chance to have a go at your vagina." But we can't have this because it makes women who take money from men look bad, and above all else other than protecting children, making women look like whores is verboten in modern culture, even if that's exactly what the behavior implies.

 

So women (I hardly ever hear men using the terms "chivalry" or "gentleman") use these terms to feel better about themselves. Ladies who want free money from men in exchange for potential sex, just OWN it! Let it be known loud and clear that there is a giant "FOR SALE" sign attached to your ass. Hell, get it tattooed on your lower back as a tramp stamp, "FOR SALE." Sell the commodity you have openly and unremorsefully. It's the oldest profession, be proud of what you are! No need to hide it behind the inept words "chivalry" and "gentleman." We all of us know it's just a transaction, no need to gussy it up.

 

Funny, I guess "old school" is the new euphemism for socially institutionalized prostitution, as that term originated in pimp culture, so we are getting closer and closer to the truth even in our attempts to euphemize, right ladies? "Old School" indeed :lmao:

[conehead]

Why would he want to take you on a second date, and pay again, when you don't have interest? Obviously you didn't other wise you wouldn't be ignoring him over this. Again, how is a guy suppose to read your mind and know?

 

There's so many women who don't like the guy to pay. Maybe he's been out with a few of those women and wasn't sure. But you're not looking at it as anything but he's cheap. Even though you straight out denied his offer to at least split it.

 

I denied his offer to split cuz at that pt I was so disgusted by his passive behavior of not wanting to pay that I at that time basically figured I dont want to see him again hence I paid so I don't owe him anything. I do have good reasons to ignore him over this, as stated in the past 15 pages of this thread.

 

I also paid because he obviously did not seem sincere about paying or even splitting, hence I didnt want to bother with the awkardness anymor and just wanted to pay and get out of there.

 

Call it a double standard all you want, but thats just how dating works still A LOT of the time. The guy pays usually. I don't know if it's fair or not, but that's just how it is.

[dreamergrl]

I ask a guy before hand if he'd prefer to go dutch or whatever. If he wants to pay, that's fine. If he rather go dutch that's fine too. At least I know ahead of time. I don't expect a man to pay my way. It is a nice feeling to have a guy want to pay and all, but that's not what draws the line on who he is. I can't expect a guy to know what I want without me voicing it either.

[Rainman760]

TO EVERYONE: How about this? I want a guy who is assertive and just pays despite. This dude was not that guy, thus I don't want to date him. He did nothing wrong as he was not obligated to pay, but he was just cheap/ungentlemanly by MY STANDARDS and the standards of alot of people on this thread as well it seems. MOST other guys I've dated has just paid, thus this guy is just an exception so no big deal. He just needs to find a girl who doesn't mind his behavior. Ok, how is that? case closed.

 

Works for me!

[Stung]

When I was dating, I viewed who paid for the first date as a point of etiquette more than some kind of powerful statement about modern gender equality. Maybe in part this is because I have dated both men and women? I was usually the askee, but I have a few times been the asker. If someone asked me out and specified a restaurant or whatever, I assumed they would pay. If I asked them out, I assumed I would pay. In case of misunderstanding, I always made sure I had enough with me to cover all costs and get a cab home, no matter what, but I generally considered it rude for someone to ask me on a date, specify a place they had chosen, and then expect me to pay for it. If the date was unpleasant or awkward enough that I knew from the beginning that there wouldn't be a second, I made sure to split the costs. Also if there was considerable travel involved for the other party, I would usually offer to split the costs or pay for a few rounds or what have you, saying specifically, 'You came all this way, the least I can do is...' After the first date or two, I always offered to pay on alternating dates, or to pick up part of the date, i.e. 'I'll get the popcorn and soda if you get the tickets, or I'll get drinks tonight but you get the cab.'

 

I dated plenty of poor students and starving artists, etc., and was always perfectly happy to do something free or very low-cost, and was always up to make those suggestions if the person asking for the date also asked me for my opinion on what to do (something I always appreciated). Walks, picnics, coffee, free night at the museum or art gallery, free concert in the park, the botanical gardens--all good first dates, IMO. One of my most memorable first dates was to a shooting range, another time it was whale-watching on her cousin's boat.

 

I wouldn't necessarily have cut the guy off at the knees like the OP for the dessert and drinks thing if I thought he was responding to my visual cues of reaching for my purse, as I have empathy for how confusing it can get, who pays for what, as evidenced by this thread. However I can understand how the mounting awkwardness of the situation was a turn-off...it would have been far better for one of them to have been more assertive and direct in the moment.

[meerkat stew]

When I was dating, I viewed who paid for the first date as a point of etiquette more than some kind of powerful statement about modern gender equality.

 

Of course, it's convenient to dismiss the issue as a mere "point of etiquette," because when viewed in a "gender equality" context today, the double standard expectation that men pay for first dates is blatantly unfair and unreasonable with no other interpretation possible once window-dressing euphemisms are removed from the equation.

 

People rationalize freely to justify bad or unfair treatment of others. I've spent most of my dating life attempting to reconcile (via the same rationalization methods many use in this thread) the "man pays" double standard with the view that women should be treated equally to make myself feel better, as I've never allowed a woman to pay for a first date. No more. I will likely still pay for first dates because I can afford to and don't want to be labelled "cheap" by the masses of installment plan prostitutes of the world, but can't escape the fact that it makes me a hypocrite where true equality is concerned.

Edited January 20, 2010 by meerkat stew

[BentSpine]

The guy pays usually. I don't know if it's fair or not, but that's just how it is.

You make it sound like you are a victim and have no choice. But you do.

[Lishy]

I would have gone on a second date had he just paid. I didnt want the second date because he did not pay.

 

 

 

TO EVERYONE: How about this? I want a guy who is assertive and just pays despite. This dude was not that guy, thus I don't want to date him. He did nothing wrong as he was not obligated to pay, but he was just cheap/ungentlemanly by MY STANDARDS and the standards of alot of people on this thread as well it seems. MOST other guys I've dated has just paid, thus this guy is just an exception so no big deal. He just needs to find a girl who doesn't mind his behavior. Ok, how is that? case closed.

 

HOOOORAYYY!!!! Thats my sentiments exactly!

 

I am actually cringing for the GIRLS who are on here saying men should not pay ... I would hate to think that little of myself to be honest.

 

You are right Conehead and I, for one, applaud you!

[donnamaybe]

I work all day, and I would NEVER be with a man who thought I should end my work day by doing ALL the cooking and cleaning for him while he chills back with a cold one in his Lay-Z-Boy.

 

That's not to say that I don't enjoy treatment my man to my considerable cooking skills. But being a woman in a relationship, to me, doesn't mean you are expected to be someone's maid and that the man, therefore, pays for it by buying dinners every single outing.

[donnamaybe]

HOOOORAYYY!!!! Thats my sentiments exactly!

 

I am actually cringing for the GIRLS who are on here saying men should not pay ... I would hate to think that little of myself to be honest.

 

You are right Conehead and I, for one, applaud you!

 

This thinly veiled insult is beneath you, Lishy.

[Lishy]

Did someone call a woman who likes a man to pay for the first date a prostitute?

 

Am I seeing things????