Shouldn't be dating if one can't afford it. a gentleman doesn't mind feeding a lady.

[dramafreezone]

Eh, I get the "equality" thing, but I don't have any problem paying if I ask the woman out and this is someone I consider to be a date and not just a friend.

If it's a friend, we're splitting the tab.

Edited January 20, 2021 by dramafreezone

[cleverusername]

10 minutes ago, dramafreezone said:

Eh, I get the "equality" thing, but I don't have any problem paying if I ask the woman out and this is someone I consider to be a date and not just a friend.

If it's a friend, we're splitting the tab.

That awkward moment when you go to pay and she says, "We're friends, I don't need you to pay"

[peach302]

17 minutes ago, trident_2020 said:

@peach302 You seem to be all over the place between "men should always pay" and "men should always pay on the first date" and "It doesn't mean you think that way " and "yes you do think the first time they meet the man should pay"

Irregardless of the inconsistencies prevalent in your posts; speaking for myself, I might pay on a first date and I might not. But the woman's attitude means everything. If she EXPECTS me to pay then it's a nonstarter.

No im not all over the place.

I said the first time the man should pay. The rest of the time can be paid any way. Either the man or the woman...or split.

I find it highly unattractive when i meet someone for the first time and they struggle to want to do so. They will come across less masculine and someone who i would doubt will continue to spark my interest 

Edited January 20, 2021 by peach302

[dramafreezone]

2 minutes ago, cleverusername said:

That awkward moment when you go to pay and she says, "We're friends, I don't need you to pay"

Well that's more or less happened in the past.  You can start off a date as a date and end as a friend if you or her just isn't feeling a spark.

Today I wouldn't be caught off guard if there was just not any chemistry or she wasn't demonstrating any type of real interest.

[trident_2020]

47 minutes ago, peach302 said:

No im not all over the place.

I said the first time the man should pay.

Ok well I still disagree, you're showing gender bias whether it's the first date or all of them.

 

 

[peach302]

1 hour ago, trident_2020 said:

Ok well I still disagree, you're showing gender bias whether it's the first date or all of them.

 

 

Thats my preference.

A man should be a man.

[Perdu]

17 hours ago, Calmandfocused said:

I do agree that in dating situations there is always a transaction” of some description. Give and take if you will.
 

However the transaction doesn’t have to be financial  or sex, it can be a simple expression of appreciation or having a good time. 
 

The op feels like he was the giver and she was the taker. Very unbalanced so he feels unsatisfied. He feels like he’s got nothing back for his investment. I get it. 

I don’t think he’s particularly bothered about this woman. It’s the principle. 

 

 

 

Well, when and if you accept the role of "giver" without knowing the outcome of the evening, you should be prepared for any ending, even for the very worst. 

Yes, it seen as common sense to  receive at least gratitude through the form of a "thank you for paying", but some people don't find necessary to provide even that. I am not saying that is good or normal, I'm just saying that it happens and that anyone who choses the role of a giver should be prepared for the worst outcome, in order not to feel so much dissatisfaction after one ..rather minor incident. 

If one is not comfortable with the worst outcome after paying for an expensive date, then one should limit his role as a giver to which ever degree he finds acceptable, like stick to just one bar or chose a date scenario that doesn't involve money.

He wasn't aware of his own limit and now he puts the blame for feeling bad just on her. She is unpolite for not giving a crap about his efforts, but the high expectations in corelation with  the high effort were his alone.

With the same outcome (her not thanking for his invitation and ghosting him ), would he feel the same dissatisfaction if he would have payed only his share or go 50-50? I am pretty sure that he wouldn't have.

So what is different in these 2 scenarios, since the outcome is the same? His actions and the limit he set for himself. 

If someone is not comfortable with the idea of paying too much or at all for a women no matter the outcome of the date, then he  just shouldn't do it. There are women out there not bothered by paying their share.  And if he finds a woman that is not satisfied by this behaviour, well, they shouldn't go on a second date. 

 

[GeorgiaPeach1]

On 1/20/2021 at 9:40 AM, Shining One said:

I've dumped several women for not paying for anything on our dates or reciprocating in some other fashion. I had sex with some of them. Egalitarianism is a relationship requirement for me.

So if you were upset that a woman didn't pay and felt it was a deal-breaker, why did you go ahead and sleep with her before dumping?

[GeorgiaPeach1]

On 1/20/2021 at 9:31 AM, trident_2020 said:

Right because poor and low income people don't deserve to meet a partner.

"Shaking my head".

😟

 

If a man is going to leave his partner hungry after she's gotten herself dolled up and spent time with him getting to know him, then fixing his financial situation should be a priority over dating around.

[GeorgiaPeach1]

22 hours ago, trident_2020 said:

Women should stay home, not work and do housework and laundry.

We're even.

 

A woman SHOULD have the option of being a stay-home wife and mother, if that's what she and her husband think is best.

Edited January 21, 2021 by GeorgiaPeach1

[Wiseman2]

6 minutes ago, GeorgiaPeach1 said:

If a man is going to leave his partner hungry after she's gotten herself dolled up and spent time with him getting to know him.

It's dating, not relationshipping.  If you are compatible after a first coffee meet, you can have a dinner date. Dinner is not a reward for appropriate grooming/clothing. 

[GeorgiaPeach1]

21 hours ago, peach302 said:

No im not all over the place.

I said the first time the man should pay. The rest of the time can be paid any way. Either the man or the woman...or split.

I find it highly unattractive when i meet someone for the first time and they struggle to want to do so. They will come across less masculine and someone who i would doubt will continue to spark my interest.

Men like that often make terrible partners.

[stillafool]

On 1/20/2021 at 9:46 AM, GeorgiaPeach1 said:

So in order to have a meal, the woman is expected to sleep with the man?

If I were a man and a woman had the attitude that I shouldn't be dating if I can't afford to buy her a meal; I would have the idea that she shouldn't accept my meal without giving me sex.  Fair exchange is no robbery.

[GeorgiaPeach1]

8 minutes ago, Wiseman2 said:

It's dating, not relationshipping.  If you are compatible after a first coffee meet, you can have a dinner date. Dinner is not a reward for appropriate grooming/clothing. 

Just like intimacy is not a reward for spending a lot of money on a date with a woman.

[Wiseman2]

1 minute ago, GeorgiaPeach1 said:

Just like intimacy is not a reward for spending a lot of money on a date with a woman.

Don't sleep with guys you're not in a committed relationship with. It's that simple.

[GeorgiaPeach1]

WIseman, I don't lol 

Very disturbed by this get something for nothing attitude some men have these days.

Edited January 21, 2021 by GeorgiaPeach1

[elaine567]

11 minutes ago, GeorgiaPeach1 said:

Men like that often make terrible partners.

That is because they have a transactional mindset, they need something in return for everything they do.
That doesn't work in long term relationships where you may end up doing things for the other with no hope of the favour being reciprocated.

[Shining One]

39 minutes ago, GeorgiaPeach1 said:

So if you were upset that a woman didn't pay and felt it was a deal-breaker, why did you go ahead and sleep with her before dumping?

Sex happens naturally over the course of dating. Sometimes it occurs before I make a final decision about her. For example, we could have sex on the third date, but I don't decide to end things until date five. I have to be "sure" about a woman before I commit to her. I don't have to be "sure" in order to sleep with her.

10 minutes ago, GeorgiaPeach1 said:

Very disturbed by this get something for nothing attitude some men have these days.

Isn't getting a free meal at someone else's expense getting something for nothing?

[Shining One]

7 minutes ago, elaine567 said:

That is because they have a transactional mindset, they need something in return for everything they do.

Is sex in exchange for a paid night out any different than a paid night out in exchange for "getting dolled up" and showing up? They both seem transactional to me.

[SumGuy]

On 1/19/2021 at 1:19 PM, GeorgiaPeach1 said:

Shouldn't be dating if one can't afford it. A gentleman doesn't mind feeding a lady.

Guess I agree on the first, if you can't afford something perhaps you should think of alternatives, but there are plenty of ways to date that cost little to no money.  I'm all for living within one's means.

On the second date=meal, where in the world is that the standard?  Date=getting to know someone and especially the first time you meet them.  In fact, the first time is a meet.  Neither person should have any expectations on a first meeting except to get to know the other person, and the basics of any social interaction such as decent behavior.  No expectation to be fed, certainly no expectation for sex.  On the scale of unreasonable and entitled expectations, certainly expecting sex is way above expecting to be fed.

I personally don't mind feeding someone, the local food banks are my favorite charity, I love to cook and make food for family and friends... I am a river to my people   I always pay on dates, but don't insist if she wishes to split or pay, because of magnanimousity not gender roles.  Nevertheless generally women I have met who expect me to pay because it is my gender role have a whole bunch of other judgmental ideas about what people are or are not supposed to do and be based not just on ones gender but other immutable physical traits.

[Miss Spider]

No lady runs up the bill to 179 on a guy she is not interested in. Sounds like a tacky freeloader with no respect for others 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Shortskirtslonglashes

[Wiseman2]

26 minutes ago, GeorgiaPeach1 said:

WIseman, I don't lol 

Very disturbed by this get something for nothing attitude some men have these days.

You're right. If he's driving you should reimburse him for the oil change, car wash, etc to get his car dolled up for the date. 🚗⛽ Now if he looks nice you'll have to add the hair cut, after shave, etc to that.

Kidding. Try not to allow dating to become a supermarket transaction. 🛒

[dramafreezone]

 

 

1 hour ago, GeorgiaPeach1 said:

If a man is going to leave his partner hungry after she's gotten herself dolled up and spent time with him getting to know him, then fixing his financial situation should be a priority over dating around.

I don't do dinner for a first date, unless I've already known the person for a while and we already know that we like each other.  For everyone else it's drinks.  It's low investment and easy to disengage if there's no chemistry.

[mark clemson]

23 hours ago, cleverusername said:

That awkward moment when you go to pay and she says, "We're friends, I don't need you to pay"

Aaaaaaaww, Snap! Just wasted $20 and a couple of hours...   🙂

[GeorgiaPeach1]

26 minutes ago, dramafreezone said:

 

 

I don't do dinner for a first date, unless I've already known the person for a while and we already know that we like each other.  For everyone else it's drinks.  It's low investment and easy to disengage if there's no chemistry.

How long is a while?