Consolidated Discussion - Paying for Dates

[dasein]

I think this is a major problem with men nowadays, you guys want quality girls but are too cheap to pay for dinner.

 

I think the privileged attitude demanding equality in all beneficial ways, yet shirking equality in accountability, including financial, for the risks of early dating, is a major problem with women nowadays.

 

Early dating used to carry presumptions about differences in the parties' financial situations and relationship/marriage goals, it no longer does. Yet the archaic "men pay" standard remains anyway. Unreasonable, inequitable, indefensible.

[clia]

I'm amazed that there are guys out there who would expect you to split the bill on a date. I can't think of anything less romantic than that. You split the bill with friends, not with a romantic interest. It sounds like a Saturday Night Live skit -- "You ordered the chicken sandwich, but you substituted a salad instead of fries, so that's an extra dollar, and you had a beer, but I only had water, so your share comes to $18.19 plus tip." I mean, seriously?

[dasein]

And yet a lot of men don't see it this way at all.

 

Equates to "lots of people don't mind sitting in the back of the bus, so it's fair to require that of whole groups of people."

 

Expecting dating men to pay a "gentleman tax," where men assume 100% of the financial risks of early dating that may continue for 1-5 dates and can stop any time is just another form of discriminatory second class citizenship in 2013, no matter how many women or men vociferously and vehemently defend it. Doesn't make it right just by saying so repetitively.

 

But yep, that challenged side of the intelligence and awareness bell curve definitely exists, no argument there. Lots of men haven't woken up yet.

[crude]

And yet a lot of men don't see it this way at all.

 

Men go along with things but don't necessarily like it. Men in the 1950's went to work while their wives watched soap operas. Those guys all came home angry often and asked the wife wtf she did all day while he worked like a dog. Those guys were beasts of burden but they knew it wasn't fair and got angry a lot. A man who goes out on 3 dates a week for a year and pays for a vacation might drop $15,000 a year on women who make as much as him. When they tell him no chemistry or go out with another chump on their OLD list who spends more, don't you think those guys are angry. When things aren't fair to women, we change laws, when things aren't fair to men, we say tough, life isn't fair.

[TheBigQuestion]

Or lots of men just have no problem paying on dates. Simple. I don't "expect" anything.

 

Yeah. They're called chumps.

[Mascara]

Very convenient in a world where men are still expected to do most or all of the initial asking out. Equates to "Men are to take all the financial risk of early dating, when subsequent dates are never a given. Women, who seek equality in every way that favors them, are mysteriously not beholden to -be- equal in ways that don't favor them."

.

 

I'm not TALKING about who asks who out, I'm talking about somebody PICKING a dinner venue, with no query as to whether the other party can afford it, and then expecting that party to foot some of the bill. If they can and do - fine. But if you have CHOSEN the venue, you should expect to pay.

 

I will not get into my personal financial details early in dating, so I expect one of two things to happen - either we do cheap/free activities (and split any costs), or if he wants dinner and picks anything that costs more than a few quid - he pays. Anything else is just rude and inconsiderate.

 

I don't mind which of those scenarios happens when he asks me out, because it's not about who asks who.

[tbf]

When things aren't fair to women, we change laws, when things aren't fair to men, we say tough, life isn't fair.

YES! Make laws surrounding paying for dates!!!!!!!!!

[dasein]

He's got no problem making me feel like a lady, even though I *GASP* have a full time job and voting rights!

 

It's cute how you refer to that kind of $$ relationship as a "lady."

 

And to preempt another argument that's coming due soon in the thread, if men don't comply, an angry, privileged flock of chicks will sit around slandering us by "cheap-cheap-cheaping" at every opportunity. That men have any real choice in this is a played out retort. "Conform or be slandered far and wide" is not much of a choice.

[TheBigQuestion]

Ha. Or in the case of my dude - this "chump" is getting laid on the reg.

 

I've never needed to pay for dates in order to get laid OR to get into long-term relationships, so yeah, he is a chump. Some guys figure this out early. Others insist on burying their heads in the sand and continue to think that they HAVE to buy a whole bunch of dinners with minimal monetary reciprocation from the woman. Please. Women aren't more entitled to monetary pampering than men are.

[colombiana28]

dasein, crude, etc...question: do you make it clear on the 1st/2nd date that you expect women to chip in or pay half?

 

also, if a woman makes it clear that she's game to hook up on the first date, would it be ok for her to let the dude to foot the bill? I mean from what I've gleaned, a lot of men are just bitter they don't get anything out of *allllll* these dates they go on where they have to pay for everything.

[Mascara]

Right. And the other argument is - I simply do NOT CARE how much he spends on dates. He isn't schlepping me to steak houses every weekend. I pick up the tab, buy groceries, surprise him with things... not sure why you have to make out that women sit back on their laurels and don't contribute anything when people are dating.

 

It's just his thing - he LIKES picking up the bill when we're out. Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand.

 

It's some weird Loveshack twilight world, where all men pay for the dates of women who are using them, while they sit around watching daytime TV, eating bonbons and refusing to do anything nice in return.

 

Also, all short men are virgins and hot women only date jerks.

[dasein]

I'm not TALKING about who asks who out, I'm talking about somebody PICKING a dinner venue, with no query as to whether the other party can afford it, and then expecting that party to foot some of the bill. If they can and do - fine. But if you have CHOSEN the venue, you should expect to pay.

 

If they CHOOSE a venue that is out of your personal budget, you can certainly open your mouth and TALK about less expensive options. If they persist after? Sure, they pay. But you and I both know that's not how things usually play out.

 

If a friend asked you if you wanted to go on a vacation you couldn't afford, would you say "yes" then expect them to pay your way because they chose the vacation? I wouldn't, and this type of scenario, "who chooses/asks... whatever... pays," which is really just a rationalizing smokescreen on "men pay," is no different.

[TheBigQuestion]

It's cute how you refer to that kind of $$ relationship as a "lady."

 

And to preempt another argument that's coming due soon in the thread, if men don't comply, an angry, privileged flock of chicks will sit around slandering us by "cheap-cheap-cheaping" at every opportunity. That men have any real choice in this is a played out retort. "Conform or be slandered far and wide" is not much of a choice.

 

Indeed. I remember some of the threads regarding this subject to which I've contributed over the years. I was called "cheap" for saying that men should not be expected to pay for dates. Lots of other names too. That's funny because most of those posters are the ones bouncing around perpetually unsatisfying short-term relationships, constantly complaining about crappy dates, lamenting that there are "no good men left," and I'm the one who is actually making this whole "long-term relationship" thing work a few years running, and having a lot of fun in the process. You'd think an overhaul of their overall dating mentalities might be to their benefit, buuuut that would require them admitting some of their long-held beliefs are incorrect.

[Mascara]

If they CHOOSE a venue that is out of your personal budget, you can certainly open your mouth and TALK about less expensive options. If they persist after? Sure, they pay. But you and I both know that's not how things usually play out.

.

 

The way it usually plays out is "great, it's all booked, a nice restaurant I know of". It's not a case of them persisting - they ask me out, I accept, ten minutes later I get an email or call stating something like the above.

 

I'm glad you agree that in that scenario, he should pay. Very often however, splitting the bill is still expected. And that is RUDE.

[crude]

Ha. Or in the case of my dude - this "chump" is getting laid on the reg.

 

The guy pays to get laid by the "lady".

[TheBigQuestion]

It's some weird Loveshack twilight world, where all men pay for the dates of women who are using them, while they sit around watching daytime TV, eating bonbons and refusing to do anything nice in return.

 

Also, all short men are virgins and hot women only date jerks.

 

You've got it wrong. ALL women only date jerks.

[Southern Cal Dude]

So glad I go out with women who don't abide by silly gender roles. If any of you want to buy Jamie dinner, he's free Fridays.

[TheBigQuestion]

He doesn't HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.

 

He LIKES TO!

 

And it's laughable that you think the only people I've ever had sex with spent money on me first. LOL I'm one of the biggest proponents of casual sex on LS.

 

That isn't what I think, and it isn't what I said. I made it abundantly clear that I was speaking in general terms. I don't understand why people on message boards insist on being able to put words in other people's mouths. Poor argumentation is poor argumentation regardless of the medium through which it occurs.

[crude]

The way it usually plays out is "great, it's all booked, a nice restaurant I know of". It's not a case of them persisting - they ask me out, I accept, ten minutes later I get an email or call stating something like the above.

 

I'm glad you agree that in that scenario, he should pay. Very often however, splitting the bill is still expected. And that is RUDE.

 

I've seen women who suggest a very expensive place to eat, they virtually invite the man, then they realize how expensive the place is, so they switch their words to "you taking me", "you picking me up", "maybe too expensive for you", making it seem like he asked her there. When the bill comes and it's huge, if he reminds her the place was her idea and she should pay her share, she pretends to be willing, and goes to her purse in slow motion, waiting for the chivalrous fool to stop her and pay himself. If he doesn't, she bad mouths him behind his back. This is what men have to put up with from the entitled ones.

[TheBigQuestion]

It's already been intimated in loose terms that my boyfriend is a "chump" because he enjoys paying for dates. And I won't even delve into the lovely terms that Crude has used to describe women in this thread.

 

Poor argumentation indeed.

 

That still doesn't mean I think (or stated) that the only way into your pants is by buying you stuff. And in case you haven't noticed, I'm not this Crude fella.

[Mascara]

I've seen women who suggest a very expensive place to eat, they virtually invite the man, then they realize how expensive the place is, so they switch their words to "you taking me", "you picking me up", "maybe too expensive for you", making it seem like he asked her there. When the bill comes and it's huge, if he reminds her the place was her idea and she should pay her share, she pretends to be willing, and goes to her purse in slow motion, waiting for the chivalrous fool to stop her and pay himself. If he doesn't, she bad mouths him behind his back. This is what men have to put up with from the entitled ones.

 

I'm sorry, have you confused me with someone who does this? I'm talking about men I date, not your fictional scenarios.

[dasein]

dasein, crude, etc...question: do you make it clear on the 1st/2nd date that you expect women to chip in or pay half?

 

There is a reasonable and unresonable implication in the above.

 

Reasonable: Yes, and it should be case by case. If a man meets a woman on "tradfamily.com" and they have profiles up suggesting their goal is a traditional core family relationship, then in those circumstances, of course a man who expected 50/50 paying should declare such, as there are reasonable assumptions at play on both ends. If OTOH a man meets a woman on match and both are lawyers for big firms, the equitable presumption, but not the prevailing cultural one, is that the couple will split dating expenses equally after maybe a token expenditure from the man at the very start.

 

Unreasonable: That without any other information, a man in 2013 should be beholden to -declare- a dutch arrangement. He's not and shouldn't be.

 

He is free to choose "cheap" dates of course, and will in fact be cheap called by a very BROAD swath of women for doing that over his dating career. It's happened to me to my face after paying an $85 drink/food tab on a first date when I tipped a valet $2! It's a risk of slander people take when dating, and the "cheap" slander is every bit as offensive as any slanders a man might make against a woman.

 

As far as whether there should be laws, there are laws, slander is a form of defamation. Good luck getting them enforced in femculture though. This is ironically a form of illegitimate and archaic social condescension against women who are presumed to be scatterbrained and loose tongued, so "their slanders don't do real damage." Of course where $$ and undue benefit are on the table, as we see so many times and in many ways, women tend not to care about social equity somehow. Imagine that.

 

Hell, the whole "gentlemen tax in dating" topic is actually a form of illegitimate social discrimination against women in the world of 2013. No placards though, or rather any placards that exist say "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" I guess the message to be gleaned is "archaic, patriarchal, condescending treatment is just fine when we benefit." So much for consistency and equality. We know the standard female view of "equality" today is a cafeteria plan where women pick and choose what they want and don't want. That's not equality, but thanks for the clarity, "ladies."

[TheBigQuestion]

There is a reasonable and unresonable implication in the above.

 

Reasonable: Yes, and it should be case by case. If a man meets a woman on "tradfamily.com" and they have profiles up suggesting their goal is a traditional core family relationship, then in those circumstances, of course a man who expected 50/50 paying should declare such, as there are reasonable assumptions at play on both ends. If OTOH a man meets a woman on match and both are lawyers for big firms, the equitable presumption, but not the prevailing cultural one, is that the couple will split dating expenses equally after maybe a token expenditure from the man at the very start.

 

Unreasonable: That without any other information, a man in 2013 should be beholden to -declare- a dutch arrangement. He's not and shouldn't be.

 

He is free to choose "cheap" dates of course, and will in fact be cheap called by a very BROAD swath of women for doing that over his dating career. It's happened to me to my face after paying an $85 drink/food tab on a first date when I tipped a valet $2! It's a risk of slander people take when dating, and the "cheap" slander is every bit as offensive as any slanders a man might make against a woman.

 

As far as whether there should be laws, there are laws, slander is a form of defamation. Good luck getting them enforced in femculture though. This is ironically a form of illegitimate and archaic social condescension against women who are presumed to be scatterbrained and loose tongued, so "their slanders don't do real damage." Of course where $$ and undue benefit are on the table, as we see so many times and in many ways, women tend not to care about social equity somehow. Imagine that.

 

Hell, the whole "gentlemen tax in dating" topic is actually a form of illegitimate social discrimination against women in the world of 2013. No placards though, or rather any placards that exist say "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" I guess the message to be gleaned is "archaic, patriarchal, condescending treatment is just fine when we benefit." So much for consistency and equality. We know the standard female view of "equality" today is a cafeteria plan where women pick and choose what they want and don't want. That's not equality, but thanks for the clarity, "ladies."

 

Stop making sense. Stop saying that people should behave equitably in dating. It's obviously making your readers uncomfortable, and we wouldn't want that.

[will1988]

He doesn't HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.

 

He LIKES TO!

 

And it's laughable that you think the only people I've ever had sex with spent money on me first. LOL I'm one of the biggest proponents of casual sex on LS.

 

A. I agree with the first part of your statement. I pay for the vast majority of my dates, because I like to, not because I have to. I like being the gentleman, and have no problem spending money to have a good time with some one. If the date is a bust, than oh well, I'm out some cash... that is why I have a job, to earn more cash. Of course sex is on the mind, being a male and all, but I go on dates to try to find someone I want to have a relationship with, not just sex... so I don't pay for dates, just to have sex... added bonus, sure, but not the sole purpose.

 

B. yes you are the biggest proponents of casual sex on LS, not that that is a bad thing!

[dasein]

I just love it when you guys can make arguments without personal insults. Really.

 

You made your own "bed" there, want me to quote the posts to emphasize how you did it? Or I can just spare us all.