Paying or Splitting Bills on First Dates

[NotYou]

So, I use Yahoo for my email primarily and with it, I often see articles. Usually they are clickbait stuff or just rubbish, but this one actually caught my attention. I am unsure (Yahoo authors usually suck) how true it is but the issue had me wondering:

Article: https://uk.yahoo.com/style/woman-snaps-date-refuses-pay-99-food-bill-133510610.html

So basically the woman invites him out. They have dinner. She spends over 100 euro and he only orders under 20 euro. He is a student and refused to pay for her order because it was expensive for him.

Of course, you can look at this from many different angles but I am curious what you ladies and gents think of this kind of date and what would you do if it happened to you? Would you pay for her? Would you, as a man or woman, ever do something like she did and order expensive on the first date?

 

[Gen]

I always go into a date assuming I’ll pay for myself. I’m old-fashioned so I think it’s nice when a guy pays - my best friend is the opposite, she prefers to pay for herself so there’s no awkwardness/resentment if there’s no second date. But I always plan to pay for myself if he doesn’t offer.

Certainly that level of entitlement is gross and inappropriate.

 

[JickyJuly]

I think his biggest mistake was apologizing. If he felt paying for himself was reasonable and appropriate, he should never have defended himself when she snarked about it. Should have counted it as a case of two people being incompatible and kept it moving. He doesn't have to pay for her, and she doesn't have to see him again if that's what she expects from a date. Many men still pay on dates. Many women are cool with splitting. Neither is wrong. He shouldn't have said sorry then expected her to continue seeing him, and she shouldn't have flipped. They're both kind of duds.

My gram always told me to take enough money to pay for myself and a cab ride home on a date. I think that's the best practice. Really, the person inviting should pay. Any time I offered to pay for myself on a first date, it was due to my disinterest in having a 2nd. For me, relationships where each person treats the other back and forth are the nicest. If I wasn't going to be around to treat in the future, I would at least offer to cover myself. I'd never argue with a dude who wanted to pay anyway though. Or argue that he should. Dates are for information gathering. Take in what the other person does. Use that to decide your interest in seeing them again. I'm not sure what either of these article people expect.

 

[JoleneBrody]

I tend to feel the person planning the date should be paying. If she asked him out and planned where they ate, she should be paying and vise versa.

Would you invite someone over for dinner and then get pissed that they didn’t bring the food?

 

[SaffronBurke]

So basically the woman invites him out. They have dinner. She spends over 100 euro and he only orders under 20 euro. He is a student and refused to pay for her order because it was expensive for him.

Whoever did the inviting should do the paying. She invited, she should pay, or bare minimum pay for herself. You don't ask someone to do something and then demand that the invitee pay the bill.

 

[SMuser69]

So, I use Yahoo for my email primarily and with it, I often see articles. Usually they are clickbait stuff or just rubbish, but this one actually caught my attention. I am unsure (Yahoo authors usually suck) how true it is but the issue had me wondering:

Article: https://uk.yahoo.com/style/woman-snaps-date-refuses-pay-99-food-bill-133510610.html

So basically the woman invites him out. They have dinner. She spends over 100 euro and he only orders under 20 euro. He is a student and refused to pay for her order because it was expensive for him.

Of course, you can look at this from many different angles but I am curious what you ladies and gents think of this kind of date and what would you do if it happened to you? Would you pay for her? Would you, as a man or woman, ever do something like she did and order expensive on the first date?

If you go by the article there's more to this. Mostly from this direct quote from him in the article.

“I usually pay for both sides when it comes to the bill, but I’m a student and I work 60 hours a week to pay for food, books etc. so I obviously couldn’t afford to pay 110 euros for her food,” he told Bored Panda.

“I asked her out again to apologise for the previous time, hoping we can go to a cheaper place so I could make up for it, but as you can see, the result was really bad. I asked her out again to apologise for the previous time, hoping we can go to a cheaper place so I could make up for it, but as you can see, the result was really bad.”​

My personal opinion is whoever asks the person out pays unless it's clear otherwise. But this isn't about other people opinions, but his own understanding of the situation in which if he's quoted correctly, didn't meet his own personal expectation. He felt he SHOULD had paid but simply couldn't afford it and went dutch instead to the surprise of his date.

 

[MDouble00]

I've always gone into a first date with the idea that I'm going to pay for it. Granted more often then not I've been the person that initiated said first date. But, on the few occasions that I wasn't I still went into it with the idea of paying. As the relationship progressed it became more open to who was going to pay for said meal or if we would split and so forth.

I have never really been stunned by a check when taking someone out. I do remember one time a girl I was dating back in college going a bit extra with her order, but I didn't make a show of it. Personally, I'm kind of a basic person when going out for meals. So I don't ever really go for a big ticket item, or excessive on the drink/wine menu.

 

[mutantdonut]

She invited him AND racked up an expensive tab on her end... It sounded like she was well aware of the fella being a struggling student, but insists "gentlemen ALWAYS pay for a girl’s food" (written verbatim) despite the fella's financial situation. A sensible, compassionate person wouldn't do that to someone else. That's unreasonably dick'ish on her part

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I pretty much agree that it's the person who's asking responsibility to pay. Or, if communicated previously, go dutch.

Always go with enough to at least cover your portion so that if needed you can pay your part if it turns out they can't/won't pay.

 

[Gen]

I’ve probably told this story before, but it fits the topic. When I got my first apartment, it coincided with a new job, who didn’t pay me for almost two months. I was broke af. A dude asked me on a date to see a movie, I said no I couldn’t do a movie bc I didn’t have money, and he said not to worry about it, we can go anyways. So off we go to the cinema, and he buys...one ticket.

Eventually he bought mine but he threw a big fit about it even though I said I’d get him next time. After the movie I gave him a hug to say goodbye and he said “that’s it?”. Not sure he could handle my usual pricing these days

Not the best date I’ve ever had

 

[Emberblaze]

I'll never, ever have any expectation of a man paying for a date unless I decided to start doing IRL sugaring (which I can't ever see happening. I prefer online interaction)

Also I usually want to eat something expensive so I'm pretty clear at the beginning that I'm going to pay for myself and if they try to stop me there won't be a second date

My ex and I actually used to fight a lot about how I wouldn't let him spend money on me. Luckily my current boyfriend is really happy to take turns paying for things.

No shade to women that want more traditional gender roles but there should be some discussion around it first. Not just an expectation.

And even if they are for sure paying, don't be an asshole and order the most expensive thing on the first date. That's just poor manners in general.

 

[SaffronBurke]

And even if they are for sure paying, don't be an asshole and order the most expensive thing on the first date. That's just poor manners in general.

I'm chronic at doing the opposite when someone else is paying. A friend used to yell at me to not get the cheapest thing when she was paying for my meal, I'd sheepishly order the second-cheapest.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I'll never, ever have any expectation of a man paying for a date unless I decided to start doing IRL sugaring (which I can't ever see happening. I prefer online interaction)

Also I usually want to eat something expensive so I'm pretty clear at the beginning that I'm going to pay for myself and if they try to stop me there won't be a second date

My ex and I actually used to fight a lot about how I wouldn't let him spend money on me. Luckily my current boyfriend is really happy to take turns paying for things.

No shade to women that want more traditional gender roles but there should be some discussion around it first. Not just an expectation.

And even if they are for sure paying, don't be an asshole and order the most expensive thing on the first date. That's just poor manners in general.

What if they swipe the bill before the waitperson can give it to you?

 

[Sophiestique]

i didnt go on many first dates in my life as ive always been in crazy long relationships since i was 17 ( im 30 now and its been 4 guys in all these years) but somehow when i was younger i assumed as he asked he;s gonna pay. but most of the time it was out for drinks not dinner or anything, i wasnt going for anything expensive and i did have money to pay for it just in case. after relationships evolved, we used to put money togheter, or times he had money or times i had them. Only once happened, talking before goin out the guy said smth about being in a bad place with money and i apreciated a lot that he was so open with that.
So happy now that in this last relationship that ended up with marriage that all money are togheter and i dont have to worry about who pays for what. first dates such a big pain in the ass)) not sure i can handle one at this time lol

 

[Emberblaze]

What if they swipe the bill before the waitperson can give it to you?

Then they've intentionally gone against what I've very clearly requested and will not get a second date. Because I only date people that respect my boundaries and that's a warning sign that they could potentially ignore other more serious boundaries.

It's different if it's a long term friend or partner that does it. But a stranger that barely knows me should never cross a boundary I've been very clear about.

 

[briandf255]

This story reads to me like the girl had no interest in the guy as a date and decided to make the most of the situation by trying to buy a nice meal for herself at his expense.

I always offer to pay, but I would probably start wondering about a girl who seems happy to let me pay for everything and not feel like she should at least offer once in a while. So far I've been fortunate enough not to meet a girl who was like that, though.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Then they've intentionally gone against what I've very clearly requested and will not get a second date. Because I only date people that respect my boundaries and that's a warning sign that they could potentially ignore other more serious boundaries.

It's different if it's a long term friend or partner that does it. But a stranger that barely knows me should never cross a boundary I've been very clear about.

I understand your point, and was thinking of it two different scenarios:

1) It wasn't a first date, was a long term partner and you two go back and forth on paying. Or, they pay for it as a kind of unexpected surprise

2) It was a first date, and things were going very well, and they playfully say something along the lines of "You can cover the next one, if you'd like" as a means of asking for a second date


In both cases, neither is meant in malice or ill will. Rather, a little lighthearted way. I do understand the concern of this maybe being an indicator of potential other breaches. But, I would think there'd be better indicators of that than someone paying the tab. Of course, this also depends upon the demeanor of how they act too as an indicator of what they might really be like.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

Leaving the bill question aside, the dude doesn't either come out of this very good to my eyes. I really don't get why he called her and asked her out again for a second date. So, to recap, a girl he fancies/is interested in asks him out. Well, great. Personally, I don't buy the friendship bs, he doesn't see her as a "simple" friend. Anyway, what does she do during the date? She keeps talking about how much she likes another guy who apparently doesn't want to know anything about her. What a great date! Sign me up all the time! If the girl is not a close friend, get your ass out of there as soon as you can. Nothing good is ever going to come out of this.

So, she's definitely not into him and, no, she's not talking about another guy with him trying to make him feel jealous about it. But he already knows all of this and the only reason he endured this nightmare date is in the false hope of her putting out for him - but we all know this is not going to happen - and not because she is his friend. And what does this guy do? He calls her again and asks her out for a second date. Looks sort of pathetic to me. I mean, is he a fool? Dude, find yourself another girl. So, did she act like an entitled bitch? Yes. Just as he acted like a complete sucker.

 

[Deleted member 35180]

I understand your point, and was thinking of it two different scenarios:

1) It wasn't a first date, was a long term partner and you two go back and forth on paying. Or, they pay for it as a kind of unexpected surprise

2) It was a first date, and things were going very well, and they playfully say something along the lines of "You can cover the next one, if you'd like" as a means of asking for a second date


In both cases, neither is meant in malice or ill will. Rather, a little lighthearted way. I do understand the concern of this maybe being an indicator of potential other breaches. But, I would think there'd be better indicators of that than someone paying the tab. Of course, this also depends upon the demeanor of how they act too as an indicator of what they might really be like.

No, if she laid out her personal boundary, there's no playful grey area.

 

[Deleted member 35180]

I don't think whoever asks for a date should automatically pay. It depends on the context. Sometimes I ask my sister if she wants to go for lunch, and we both know we're going to be paying for our own lunches. If she says something like oh I can't afford it right now, I might suggest something else like picking up groceries and making lunch at home or I might just offer to pay because I really want dat thai food at that specific thai restaurant.

As far as romantic dating goes though, women are shown to consciously or subconsciously trend towards wanting to date someone with a higher status than them. It's gender roles, it's biology, it's whatever, but it is. (I wish I had sources, but the man who discuses this with me and other gender related things is a man of sources, so I believe it). Of course people can do whatever they want, but other studies have shown that North American women's genuine happiness (as a generalization and not necessarily representative of the whole) has been declining for years as a result of defined gender roles deconstructing. Many men have also reported feeling lost without a role in this modern age. It seems some traditions make sense and generally make people happy. I'm all for moderation. I like having my own money and being able to do everything myself, but I want a man who would never want to let me do it all myself. I want a man who wants to help me with this and that without ever treating me like I'm helpless. But that's just me, and what I've heard.

 

[AudriTwo]

Maybe I'm just a slut, but I don't think I ever had these conversations about who is paying. I always had my own money and never felt like it's the man's obligation to pay or we would go on dates that didn't consist of spending money. If it was discussed on splitting, it was usually before we'd go on the date.

 

[briandf255]

There are two different ways a girl can approach relationships/dating:

1) She can think of herself as a potential partner who would contribute equally just as her date/boyfriend/husband would and try not to take more than she gives.

2) She can see herself as a prize who has to be won over with gifts and expects to be "spoiled" by men in their quest to win her affections.

This girl was clearly the second type. Then again, men who think they can buy a woman with expensive gifts rarely respect women or consider them equals. They are just as arrogant in their opinion of themselves as the women whose affection they "buy"... So I guess those types deserve each other.

In this case I'm not sure if the guy thought he should be a "provider" and simply couldn't afford it with his income and all his expenses for school and felt guilty about it or if it was a mismatch of types and he felt like the girl was trying to take advantage of him. (On the girl's part there was clearly no interest, if during the date she was talking about another guy she likes.)

 

[yummybrownfox]

I've always felt that the person asking the other person out should be the one to pay.

 

[Mila_]

I don't think whoever asks for a date should automatically pay. It depends on the context. Sometimes I ask my sister if she wants to go for lunch, and we both know we're going to be paying for our own lunches. If she says something like oh I can't afford it right now, I might suggest something else like picking up groceries and making lunch at home or I might just offer to pay because I really want dat thai food at that specific thai restaurant.

As far as romantic dating goes though, women are shown to consciously or subconsciously trend towards wanting to date someone with a higher status than them. It's gender roles, it's biology, it's whatever, but it is. (I wish I had sources, but the man who discuses this with me and other gender related things is a man of sources, so I believe it). Of course people can do whatever they want, but other studies have shown that North American women's genuine happiness (as a generalization and not necessarily representative of the whole) has been declining for years as a result of defined gender roles deconstructing. Many men have also reported feeling lost without a role in this modern age. It seems some traditions make sense and generally make people happy. I'm all for moderation. I like having my own money and being able to do everything myself, but I want a man who would never want to let me do it all myself. I want a man who wants to help me with this and that without ever treating me like I'm helpless. But that's just me, and what I've heard.

I agree so much!

Gender is biological and it comes with different realities and expectations. Women are the gatekeepers of sex and romance, men are the ones knocking on many doors so when a woman says “yes” that man should honor the opportunity by leaving a great impression and showing her that he can be a good partner, even if his plan was to pump and dump he should at least pay for the date. Goes all the way back to sex cells.. Sperm is abundant, eggs are scarce, getting a woman pregnant is easy and risk free, but carrying a pregnancy and giving birth is high risk, can even be fatal, not to mention the pregnant woman is weak and defenseless... so women evolved to guard themselves and only letting the right man in.. a man who can provide and care for them during the difficult pregnancy and then provide for their babies. The way to find that out is testing them, which is basically what a date is. I was raised to split the bill and did it all my life, insisted on it even until a guy took me out and paid the bill with pride and it feels really nice

 

[AnaBee]

I used to think since man and women are equal all responsibilities should be equal as well. And people can live happily like that if that's their thing, but the older I get more I realize for me equal doesn't mean we are the same.
Now I would always offer to pay for myself but if he would allow me to do so the second date is not likely to happen.
When I was younger I would insist and fight to pay, I think a big part of it was my insecurity. I wanted to prove I'm capable of handling it myself. Now I know there's no question about me being capable or not, but it's fun (and even sexy to me) to allow others to take care of me.

 

[JickyJuly]

2) She can see herself as a prize who has to be won over with gifts and expects to be "spoiled" by men in their quest to win her affections.

Could we just take a minute and imagine how beautiful the world might be if all women were allowed to feel this way and act accordingly? "Gifts" don't have to be merely financial. The idea that women should put up with whatever they're given and give whatever they can is the reason this world is in disarray. Society shits on women and expects turds to be shined.

ETA: I'm not sure why there are men who get so angry that money appeals to some women more than anything else? It's an equalizer. Everything else that appeals to women is either genetic or talent. Money is way easier than being born pretty, seeking out cosmetic surgery or learning a skill.

 

[Deleted member 35180]

I love the way this thread is going.

Ahhh

my little heart.

 

[briandf255]

Could we just take a minute and imagine how beautiful the world might be if all women were allowed to feel this way and act accordingly? "Gifts" don't have to be merely financial. The idea that women should put up with whatever they're given and give whatever they can is the reason this world is in disarray. Society shits on women and expects turds to be shined.

ETA: I'm not sure why there are men who get so angry that money appeals to some women more than anything else? It's an equalizer. Everything else that appeals to women is either genetic or talent. Money is way easier than being born pretty, seeking out cosmetic surgery or learning a skill.

Please don't take my post to imply that women don't deserve kindness or gifts or appreciation and they should just accept whatever a man offers them. I'm not sure where I seemed to imply that.

For one, it feels good to be appreciated regardless of whether you're male or female. My post was more a comment about the type of woman who basically doesn't do anything but sit back and let guys compete for her - I don't like that sort of passive approach. Especially if the competition is purely a financial one (i.e. gifts, expensive dinners) then it's by no means certain that the "winner" will turn out to be the best choice the girl could have picked. Or do all the girls who disagreed with my post disagree even with that basic assumption?

To you does a guy who spends every last dime he has on a woman demonstrating that he would be a better future partner for her than a man who sets limits? Is a guy who can afford a $100,000 wedding ring going to be a better husband than a guy who can only afford a much cheaper one.

I don't know, I just find it a bit surprising that most of the responses to my post seem to imply that for girls being "financially attractive" is in fact the most important criteria. By that I'm not talking about wanting a guy who has a steady job and is able to provide enough financially that together the two of you could life comfortably.

I always thought, based on my own conversations with girls, that when it comes to guys who have already met a minimum "financial appeal" test, such as having a decent job, other considerations become more important (physical/emotional chemistry, etc.) rather than the financial considerations trumping everything else in a "men who have more money are always preferable to men who have less" even once you get past the point where you no longer have to worry about lack of money. In other words, I understand the "men who make $50,000 per year are preferable to men who make $10,000 per year", but not so much the "men who make $500,000 a year are preferable to men who make $400,000 a year, regardless of other differences that are in favour of the man with the lesser income".

This whole "being spoiled" issue depends on an individual's own view of material gifts. I was not raised in a family (or culture) that places much emphasis on showering your loved ones with gifts and I don't see much value in material gifts both as a giver and as a recipient. It's just not how I measure love and it's not how my family/friends measure my love for them. Maybe that's why I find it off-putting that other people would require frequent expensive gifts to prove that I love them or to prove myself worthy of being their friend/boyfriend. Small thoughtful/meaningful gifts, I can appreciate, but not so much the difference between a $150 dinner and a $30 dinner. I view spending above a certain threshold as wasteful, rather than desirable - regardless of whether I'm the one spending that money on someone else (or on myself) or whether someone else spends it on me.

What a shock though... I didn't expect so much disagreement with a post about how a man who is a "gift giver" would not necessarily make as good a partner as a man who respects you and treats you as an equal.

 

[Deleted member 35180]

Please don't take my post to imply that women don't deserve kindness or gifts or appreciation and they should just accept whatever a man offers them. I'm not sure where I seemed to imply that.

For one, it feels good to be appreciated regardless of whether you're male or female. My post was more a comment about the type of woman who basically doesn't do anything but sit back and let guys compete for her - I don't like that sort of passive approach. Especially if the competition is purely a financial one (i.e. gifts, expensive dinners) then it's by no means certain that the "winner" will turn out to be the best choice the girl could have picked. Or do all the girls who disagreed with my post disagree even with that basic assumption?

To you does a guy who spends every last dime he has on a woman demonstrating that he would be a better future partner for her than a man who sets limits? Is a guy who can afford a $100,000 wedding ring going to be a better husband than a guy who can only afford a much cheaper one.

I don't know, I just find it a bit surprising that most of the responses to my post seem to imply that for girls being "financially attractive" is in fact the most important criteria. By that I'm not talking about wanting a guy who has a steady job and is able to provide enough financially that together the two of you could life comfortably.

I always thought, based on my own conversations with girls, that when it comes to guys who have already met a minimum "financial appeal" test, such as having a decent job, other considerations become more important (physical/emotional chemistry, etc.) rather than the financial considerations trumping everything else in a "men who have more money are always preferable to men who have less" even once you get past the point where you no longer have to worry about lack of money. In other words, I understand the "men who make $50,000 per year are preferable to men who make $10,000 per year", but not so much the "men who make $500,000 a year are preferable to men who make $400,000 a year, regardless of other differences that are in favour of the man with the lesser income".

This whole "being spoiled" issue depends on an individual's own view of material gifts. I was not raised in a family (or culture) that places much emphasis on showering your loved ones with gifts and I don't see much value in material gifts both as a giver and as a recipient. It's just not how I measure love and it's not how my family/friends measure my love for them. Maybe that's why I find it off-putting that other people would require frequent expensive gifts to prove that I love them or to prove myself worth of being their friend/boyfriend. Small thoughtful/meaningful gifts, I can appreciate, but not so much the difference between a $150 dinner and a $30 dinner. I view spending above a certain threshold as wasteful, rather than desirable - regardless of whether I'm the one spending that money on someone else (or on myself) or whether someone else spends it on me.

What a shock though... I didn't expect so much disagreement with a post about how a man who is a "gift giver" would not necessarily make as good a partner as a man who respects you and treats you as an equal.

First of all, only two women disagreed with your post, calm down. Myself, because it was snotty and seems to reflect your general interest in making women who want a date paid for out to be shallow gold diggers. We're talking about a dinner here. If a guy can't even pay for a dinner, he has no business dating. He needs to get his own life together at that point so no, he is not someone I'd have any interest in dating as an adult woman. Anyone in the middle class or above category works just fine for me, as that is where I myself want to be, and I do not want to date someone with less money than myself. No one is implying a man with 550000 is going to be a better partner than someone with 50000, we're implying that someone who can't even pay for our dinner probably doesn't value us much. You keep implying that for a woman to be treated equal, she should not receive financial recompense for her time. Do you have ANY idea how much time and money most women spend on looking nice for a date? If she's to be treated equal, she should be showed tangible appreciation for her efforts, efforts that are pretty much expected of her.

 

[briandf255]

You are reading a lot into my post that simply isn't there...

You seem to imply this was a typical dinner date.

1) If a $150 dinner for a first date is no big deal to you and you think it was a completely reasonable thing for the girl to order then that is where we differ in our opinions.

2) The girl invited the guy on the date and then she got offended that he didn't pay. He didn't invite her, unless I misread something.

3) The girl spent the date talking about another guy she likes and yet she was the one who initiated the date. To me that's a good indication that she was not interested in her date and she was attempting to use him to treat herself to a free dinner at his expense.

Umm... I'm not upset. We disagree and that's all there is to it. I was curious what exactly it was about my post you and whoever else the other person was disagreed with. I was surprised that anyone disagreed, because I read the comments below the article pretty far down and not one person thought the girl acted appropriately by ordering such an expensive dish. If you think she did, you're in a very small minority and that's why I wanted to understand you reasoning. I'm curious why me disagreeing with what the girl did in this particular situation lead you to believe that I think all girls who want their date paid for are gold-diggers. Do you really see this as just another typical date no different from the rest?