Paying or Splitting Bills on First Dates

[Deleted member 35180]

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?

This thread has veered away from the OP and more towards the actual title of the thred of who should pay for a date. "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." is where you start to veer away from the questions about the OP and more towards generalizations. Generalizations that many of us disagree with and have written extensive replies on why. If you can't read and comprehend those, and are shocked that women disagree with you, there's really no point in attempting to have a discussion with you further.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

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.

Yep, anywhere from 0 to 6 hours.

I'm sorry, but I really don't agree with this part of your post. If she's "to be treated equal", then it's "as an equal". Meaning both parties do not place one above the other. Nor should they have unreasonably high expectations.

 

[briandf255]

Mila_'s post is actually something I fully agree with, so I'm not sure why you consider it a rebuttal of my post. I understand why women are biologically programmed to be more picky and I also understand why men are biologically programmed to try to impress women as a part of courtship. In my own post I was only questioning the appropriateness of using money as the sole (or at least primary) measure of how attractive a men was.

Again, maybe I wasn't clear, but what I was hinting at is that I thought how a men treats you - how he talks to you, how he listens to you, etc. - would be more important than how much money he spends on you. I was trying to keep my post on Saturday brief and I guess a lot of it got lost in translation and came across as an attack on all women who wanted any kind of "spoiling". I should have put it like this: "She can see herself as a prize who has to be won over with gifts and expects to be "spoiled" with material gifts by men in their quest to win her affections."

AnaBee seems to be saying that she appreciates being taken care of. Sure... Doesn't anyone? There is nothing wrong with that. That's not the same as saying that she would invite a guy on a date just to have someone pay for her meal.

JickyJuly makes a good point. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone got treated like a treasure? That's why my post was a response to her, because she quoted me and then responded as if I was suggesting that women don't deserve to be treated well and they shouldn't expect anything.

I'll try to make myself clear one last time:

There is nothing wrong with appreciating attention, gifts, etc. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be treated well. There is nothing wrong with expecting to be treated well. I never said women shouldn't want to be treated well. I never said women shouldn't expect to be treated well.... Heck, the whole reason for saying that the guys who buy the most gifts are not necessarily the best partners is exactly because they may buy you lots of stuff and think that's all they need to do and otherwise treat you as someone not worthy of respect. My intention was to say that women deserve something more than material gifts and by seeking men who buy them gifts they may end up with someone* who spends lots of money on them but otherwise doesn't treat them well, therefore gifts shouldn't be how guys are measured.

* A good example of the type of guy I had in mind was Al Pacino's character in Scarface.

Somehow that got interpreted as an attack on women in general and how women are not deserving of being treated well, if I understand correctly. My post was more of a "if all you want from a guy are gifts, be careful what you wish for because you may get a guy who will buy you stuff, but not consider you as an equal or treat you well".

It seems that the "word" equal may have been part of the problem. I meant it as something positive (with "equal" meaning "deserving of equal respect") and it seems that several girls took it to mean something negative (with "equal" meaning that guys have the right to demand that girls match everything they do or the men shouldn't do it either).... It's kind of interesting, because most of my best friends were always girls and many of them have told me that most guys don't treat girls as equals and consider them "prettier but dumber" than men (almost like a child), so in a way they were saying that men don't treat them as their equals intellectually and here that same word got interpreted to imply that girls being equal to men, men no longer have to do anything to women that women don't do to them.

Anyways, if this doesn't clear things up, I'll stop trying. I don't want to go in circles. LOL

 

[Deleted member 35180]

Yep, anywhere from 0 to 6 hours.

I'm sorry, but I really don't agree with this part of your post. If she's "to be treated equal", then it's "as an equal". Meaning both parties do not place one above the other. Nor should they have unreasonably high expectations.

I don't think acknowledging that a woman is oftentimes expected to have long well managed hair, makeup, expensive fingernails, and all the rest of it means that you're placing her above, so much as showing her that you understand how much effort and money it takes for her to be presentable in the way that she'd expected to be for a date in comparison to most most men, but I am happy to agree to disagree.

 

[Mila_]

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.

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?

I disagree with your posts and your tone comes off as butthurt. Yes, one attribute women value in men is financial acumen. It isn’t the only attribute or Mark Zuckerberg would have married better. Yes, all things equal I prefer my offspring living in 500k income household than a 50k one. Yes, I prefer a man who shows manners and pays for the first date with pride, especially if he takes me to a fancy restaurant because it is a reflection of the way he sees himself, as protector and provider. No, I don’t think men are better than this. All things equal would you rather marry a 5 or a 10? Would you rather marry a 24 year old or a 45 year old? Women are measured by their beauty and fertility and men are measured by their capacity to protect and provide. Other things do matter but these are the first things people see, the first impression so to speak, there will be no time to find out if Tom really is my soul mate if he doesn’t pay for the first date.

 

[Deleted member 35180]

I disagree with your posts and your tone comes off as butthurt. Yes, one attribute women value in men is financial acumen. It isn’t the only attribute or Mark Zuckerberg would have married better. Yes, all things equal I prefer my offspring living in 500k income household than a 50k one. Yes, I prefer a man who shows manners and pays for the first date with pride, especially if he takes me to a fancy restaurant because it is a reflection of the way he sees himself, as protector and provider. No, I don’t think men are better than this. All things equal would you rather marry a 5 or a 10? Would you rather marry a 24 year old or a 45 year old? Women are measured by their beauty and fertility and men are measured by their capacity to protect and provide. Other things do matter but these are the first things people see, the first impression so to speak, there will be no time to find out if Tom really is my soul mate if he doesn’t pay for the first date.

Exactly. Equal does not mean the same. She brings what she's expected to bring, you bring what you're expected to bring. If you don't like the way we're biologically programmed, you can fight it all you want, but that fight is not showing to actually make either party happier.

 

[Gen]

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.

If that works for her...get it, girl. A desirable woman who has multiple people vying for her, you should expect to put in effort. If she’s spoiled for choice, as many young women are, that’s a reality you can’t talk your way out of. Whether a guy stands out by showering her with gifts or being the best listener or whatever, she evidently doesn’t need to put herself out there if she’s got guys competing for her.

Likewise I’m sure the newly divorced Jeff Bezos will have wider options for a new partner than the average middle-aged, ugly divorcee. Such is life. I don’t believe we can rationalize or complain our way out of those facts.

 

[Deleted member 35180]

If that works for her...get it, girl. A desirable woman who has multiple people vying for her, you should expect to put in effort. If she’s spoiled for choice, as many young women are, that’s a reality you can’t talk your way out of. Whether a guy stands out by showering her with gifts or being the best listener or whatever, she evidently doesn’t need to put herself out there if she’s got guys competing for her.

Likewise I’m sure the newly divorced Jeff Bezos will have wider options for a new partner than the average middle-aged, ugly divorcee. Such is life. I don’t believe we can rationalize or complain our way out of those facts.

On a separate but slightly similar note, I hate Jeff Bezos. What a crook. I would rather date a guy with much less than a Jeff Bezos. So sometimes, personality and morality/character of the person does count for something. But a person still needs to hold up the bare minimum of their expected part. Are you going to want a second date with a woman who shows up disheveled and with 0 hours put into her appearance? I really doubt it.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I don't think acknowledging that a woman is oftentimes expected to have long well managed hair, makeup, expensive fingernails, and all the rest of it means that you're placing her above, so much as showing her that you understand how much effort and money it takes for her to be presentable in the way that she'd expected to be for a date in comparison to most most men, but I am happy to agree to disagree.

To be honest, I don't expect those things from a woman. If we go out, my expectation is that we dress appropriate to the occasion. Meaning, if it's a nice upscale restaurant, we both dress up. If we're going to a dive bar, or a water side place, we dress down. Does this mean I don't appreciate the effort she may put into looking as nice as she wants to be? Not in the least, I absolutely love it when I get to see her dressed up and I love the smile on her face when she approves of how I look. Thus why I disagree with the "how much effort and money" statement of yours. Because, as you put it, completely negates any effort and expense a guy may spend on getting prepared. Because, well, you women have expectations too.

 

[JickyJuly]

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.

I'm sorry if it seemed like I took your post as wholly negative. I think it's a fascinating topic. I can't speak for the women who've chosen their partner based mostly on finances. I married my dude based on looks, smell, wit and the ability to play guitar. None of those things are necessarily wiser than financial gains. Hehe. I'm guessing that for the women who've told you that what you're offering is worth more than money to them, that was true. My husband is everything to me. My kids are gorgeous. We'll never be rich, but my babies won't need nose jobs because his genes cancelled out my schnozI guess. Kidding sort of. We all gravitate toward whomever we do for whatever reasons whether we think them out or not.

But, in America, we tend to tout "following your heart" over following your mind. In matters of attraction, I don't think we can argue that it's always for the best. Following your heart really means following your libido (yes for women too), following what is comfortable/relationships that have been modeled for you (not always a win if you come from dysfunction) etc. This idea of finding romantic love based solely on your wants and not building a future/building on your family and all that is relatively new. It's brave, but it's not necessarily any more moral or decent than choosing a partner based on stability is it? Yet, our society judges women who do anything less. Really, women are judged harshly for whichever man they choose, aren't we? Go low, you've picked up a bum and get what you deserve. Go for money and boom gold digger. I'm not sure I get the idea that a man who pays on dates or spends a lot of money on his date would respect her less? Plenty of dudes in different socioeconomic brackets are bad partners. Plenty of them aren't respectful after they pay their half or get treated either to be honest.

Either way, the idea that women should pay anything on a date is a relatively new concept because women having money of their own is still pretty new. Marrying wealth used to be a woman's only way out of poverty. The idea that women should not marry for money was out there to discourage women from jumping class.Not so long ago, a smart woman was certainly the one telling her vagina to shut up and choosing a man with his bank account in mind. The girls who got pregnant outside of marriage or married poorly and were widowed got screwed. Women inviting men on dates is pretty new as well. Men aren't needed by women anymore so much as wanted. In theory, that's great. In practice, it makes for a lot of bad dates or crossed lines because women are allowed to want who they want for whatever reason just as men are. Women making their own choices is still kind of taboo if we're being honest. Still, a woman screening for $ is the same as men screening for age. We're just not used to seeing it put out there so openly. We generally accept that men aren't clamoring to date 60 year old women without judging them. Old women don't really want to be invisible anymore than the guy who flips burgers. Same concept.

Women misunderstanding their worth is the root of a lot of our world's evils. If a girl feels that she wants a man who buys her dinner every day of the week, good on her. If she feels better paying, cool too. Dating is optional. No one is being billed without agreeing to be there. As long as people are honest, however they choose a partner is their own risk to calculate.

 

[Deleted member 35180]

To be honest, I don't expect those things from a woman. If we go out, my expectation is that we dress appropriate to the occasion. Meaning, if it's a nice upscale restaurant, we both dress up. If we're going to a dive bar, or a water side place, we dress down. Does this mean I don't appreciate the effort she may put into looking as nice as she wants to be? Not in the least, I absolutely love it when I get to see her dressed up and I love the smile on her face when she approves of how I look. Thus why I disagree with the "how much effort and money" statement of yours. Because, as you put it, completely negates any effort and expense a guy may spend on getting prepared. Because, well, you women have expectations too.

Yeah... they're not the same.

 

[briandf255]

Thanks for your considerate response!

I agree with most of what you wrote, so I'll just respond to the parts where we may disagree or where I feel like I should clarify my earlier comments.

As an aside... I enjoy discussions and the best discussions are between people who don't agree with each other (at least not completely), but at the same time are respectful. Notice that I never insulted anyone I disagreed with and I didn't call anyone "snotty" or "butthurt"... I try to understand what they are trying to say, address the points they made that I don't agree with and refrain from commenting on what I think of their tone or their personality and I try to keep it civil. If I misunderstand anyone it's an honest mistake and not me trying to put words into her mouth - in that case please clarify what you meant and we can move on. I would appreciate the same in return. If I clarify something, don't keep going back and quoting my original post as if I didn't. If someone keeps insisting on responding to things I haven't said as if I said them, or things I already clarified as if I didn't (like telling me that men and women being "equal" doesn't mean they are "the same" right after disliking a post where I explained that by "equal" I meant "equally deserving of respect" and not that they should play the exact same role in a relationship). What's the point in talking past each other or engaging in insults/name-calling? Sorry, but I won't play. It was my mistake to respond to the posters who already started with that attitude in their very first post directed at me and expect anything other than what I got so far from them.

I'm sorry if it seemed like I took your post as wholly negative. I think it's a fascinating topic. I can't speak for the women who've chosen their partner based mostly on finances. I married my dude based on looks, smell, wit and the ability to play guitar. None of those things are necessarily wiser than financial gains. Hehe. I'm guessing that for the women who've told you that what you're offering is worth more than money to them, that was true. My husband is everything to me. My kids are gorgeous. We'll never be rich, but my babies won't need nose jobs because his genes cancelled out my schnozI guess. Kidding sort of. We all gravitate toward whomever we do for whatever reasons whether we think them out or not.

I understand that different people look for very different things in a partner. Even though I probably came across as a cheapskate, I always pay when I invite someone to a restaurant - whether it's a date, a friend or a family member. I've actually never met anyone who repeatedly let me pay for everything without offering to pay. Depending on the situation, when someone offers to pay I may insist that it's my treat or we'll agree that he/she can pay next time.

So it's not that I'm against gifts or that I insist that women should pay half because they are "equal", I just don't believe in a romantic relationship being heavily based on gifts. Maybe it works for some people. I never said that all guys who buy gifts are bad guys or that all girls who enjoy gifts are gold-diggers. I just disputed the idea that generousness with material gifts is the most important or best measure of a guy's worthiness of being someone's partner and I implied that girls who look for that in a man above all other things may end up with a partner who ultimately doesn't treat them as well as they should be treated and in that case it was their own shortsightedness that got them into that situation. (Hence my comment about deserving each other. Maybe that was a bit harsh, so I apologize.)

But, in America, we tend to tout "following your heart" over following your mind. In matters of attraction, I don't think we can argue that it's always for the best. Following your heart really means following your libido (yes for women too), following what is comfortable/relationships that have been modeled for you (not always a win if you come from dysfunction) etc. This idea of finding romantic love based solely on your wants and not building a future/building on your family and all that is relatively new. It's brave, but it's not necessarily any more moral or decent than choosing a partner based on stability is it? Yet, our society judges women who do anything less. Really, women are judged harshly for whichever man they choose, aren't we? Go low, you've picked up a bum and get what you deserve. Go for money and boom gold digger. I'm not sure I get the idea that a man who pays on dates or spends a lot of money on his date would respect her less? Plenty of dudes in different socioeconomic brackets are bad partners. Plenty of them aren't respectful after they pay their half or get treated either to be honest.

Maybe it's just that as a male I have trouble understanding how having a lot of money can be "attractive". I guess it's one of those biological differences between the genders that have been brought up earlier. I can be attracted to a girl because of her physical appearance, because of her personality, because of her attitude, because of her confidence, but I've never been attracted to wealth - or to fame, for that matter. It will be one of those things I will probably never understand.

I do understand wanting a partner who can provide stability. It's only when expensive dinners, jewellery, luxury cars, etc. enter the picture that I no longer see finding a man who can provide those things being *the* most important concern over the all other factors. (All my posts, if you read them again, were about girls being mostly concerned with wealth and ignoring all else and not about wealth just being one of many things they look at. I didn't object to that, because that's how I think it's best... Wanting a balance between the many things a man can bring to the table, rather than focusing on a single thing.)

I think the distinction I was trying to make between being treated well and being bought lots of expensive stuff wasn't as clear as I thought it was, because everyone seems to have missed it. I wasn't saying that gifts are bad or inviting your girlfriend for dinner is bad. I wasn't saying that guys who want you to pay for your own food will treat you better. I do believe - and maybe you disagree with me on this - that guys who try to bribe girls into dating them with material gifts are usually not the type of men who value women for who they are. Again, I'm talking about guys who use gifts as the primary way to win someone over. I think that if you like a person and care about her usually there are more meaningful ways of showing it than pulling out your wallet. (Again, I feel like I have to repeat myself because large parts of my earlier posts were completely ignored, but I'm not saying that all gifts are bad - only that excessively relying on gifts to woo a partner seems pretty shallow to me.)

Maybe money is an "equalizer" as you put it your earlier post, but it's also pretty easy to throw around if you've got a lot of it. For men who are well-off, buying lavish gifts is the easiest way to impress the women they are pursuing. It doesn't necessarily require a lot of effort or thought. Maybe for one guy buying you a luxury car is less of a bother than it would be for another guy to buy you a nice dress. Just because the luxury car is worth more doesn't mean that the guy who paid for it cares about you more than the other guy. Maybe to him it was pocket change while the other guy put a lot of effort into finding out which dress you liked so he could surprise you with it.

I just don't see how a girl buying me gifts while she's constantly away on business trips or while working long hours and then coming home too tired to spend time with me would be a satisfying relationship for me no matter how high the monetary value of her gifts. I really don't understand why this became an issue of contention, but sure, if for some girls that arrangement with a man who is never there for them physically or emotionally, but does buy great gifts works and it would make them happy then by all means go for it!

Either way, the idea that women should pay anything on a date is a relatively new concept because women having money of their own is still pretty new. Marrying wealth used to be a woman's only way out of poverty. The idea that women should not marry for money was out there to discourage women from jumping class.Not so long ago, a smart woman was certainly the one telling her vagina to shut up and choosing a man with his bank account in mind. The girls who got pregnant outside of marriage or married poorly and were widowed got screwed. Women inviting men on dates is pretty new as well. Men aren't needed by women anymore so much as wanted. In theory, that's great. In practice, it makes for a lot of bad dates or crossed lines because women are allowed to want who they want for whatever reason just as men are. Women making their own choices is still kind of taboo if we're being honest. Still, a woman screening for $ is the same as men screening for age. We're just not used to seeing it put out there so openly. We generally accept that men aren't clamoring to date 60 year old women without judging them. Old women don't really want to be invisible anymore than the guy who flips burgers. Same concept.

Women misunderstanding their worth is the root of a lot of our world's evils. If a girl feels that she wants a man who buys her dinner every day of the week, good on her. If she feels better paying, cool too. Dating is optional. No one is being billed without agreeing to be there. As long as people are honest, however they choose a partner is their own risk to calculate.

Good points!

But it's not like marrying for love necessarily means marrying into poverty any more than marrying for wealth means an unhappy marriage. Overall, I think the human connection is more important than money and having that connection to build on in the beginning of a marriage gives a couple a better chance to be able to nurture their relationship into the future than in a marriage that was founded on the husband being able to provide a comfortable lifestyle to his wife. I'm not saying it can never work, it's just a less solid ground to build on, because they still have to live together.

Is a woman who doesn't have to work necessarily happier than a woman who needs to have a job to help support her family? Are wealthy people happier than poor people? Are people who married for love happier in general than people who married for wealth? For the last one, my guess would be a yes. For the others, I'm not so sure.

Again I understand that financial stability is something that has to be considered and I never said it shouldn't. There is nothing wrong with a woman screening for $ and there is nothing wrong with a man screening for age. A woman considering wealth to be the one and only important thing in a man is sort of like a man claiming that the one and only important thing in a woman is that she's a virgin. Sadly that does happen, too.

 

[Deleted member 35180]

Thanks for your considerate response!

I agree with most of what you wrote, so I'll just respond to the parts where we may disagree or where I feel like I should clarify my earlier comments.

As an aside... I enjoy discussions and the best discussions are between people who don't agree with each other (at least not completely), but at the same time are respectful. Notice that I never insulted anyone I disagreed with and I didn't call anyone "snotty" or "butthurt"... I try to understand what they are trying to say, address the points they made that I don't agree with and refrain from commenting on what I think of their tone or their personality and I try to keep it civil. If I misunderstand anyone it's an honest mistake and not me trying to put words into her mouth - in that case please clarify what you meant and we can move on. I would appreciate the same in return. If I clarify something, don't keep going back and quoting my original post as if I didn't. If someone keeps insisting on responding to things I haven't said as if I said them, or things I already clarified as if I didn't (like telling me that men and women being "equal" doesn't mean they are "the same" right after disliking a post where I explained that by "equal" I meant "equally deserving of respect" and not that they should play the exact same role in a relationship). What's the point in talking past each other or engaging in insults/name-calling? Sorry, but I won't play. It was my mistake to respond to the posters who already started with that attitude in their very first post directed at me and expect anything other than what I got so far from them.


I understand that different people look for very different things in a partner. Even though I probably came across as a cheapskate, I always pay when I invite someone to a restaurant - whether it's a date, a friend or a family member. I've actually never met anyone who repeatedly let me pay for everything without offering to pay. Depending on the situation, when someone offers to pay I may insist that it's my treat or we'll agree that he/she can pay next time.

So it's not that I'm against gifts or that I insist that women should pay half because they are "equal", I just don't believe in a romantic relationship being heavily based on gifts. Maybe it works for some people. I never said that all guys who buy gifts are bad guys or that all girls who enjoy gifts are gold-diggers. I just disputed the idea that generousness with material gifts is the most important or best measure of a guy's worthiness of being someone's partner and I implied that girls who look for that in a man above all other things may end up with a partner who ultimately doesn't treat them as well as they should be treated and in that case it was their own shortsightedness that got them into that situation. (Hence my comment about deserving each other. Maybe that was a bit harsh, so I apologize.)


Maybe it's just that as a male I have trouble understanding how having a lot of money can be "attractive". I guess it's one of those biological differences between the genders that have been brought up earlier. I can be attracted to a girl because of her physical appearance, because of her personality, because of her attitude, because of her confidence, but I've never been attracted to wealth - or to fame, for that matter. It will be one of those things I will probably never understand.

I do understand wanting a partner who can provide stability. It's only when expensive dinners, jewellery, luxury cars, etc. enter the picture that I no longer see finding a man who can provide those things being *the* most important concern over the all other factors. (All my posts, if you read them again, were about girls being mostly concerned with wealth and ignoring all else and not about wealth just being one of many things they look at. I didn't object to that, because that's how I think it's best... Wanting a balance between the many things a man can bring to the table, rather than focusing on a single thing.)

I think the distinction I was trying to make between being treated well and being bought lots of expensive stuff wasn't as clear as I thought it was, because everyone seems to have missed it. I wasn't saying that gifts are bad or inviting your girlfriend for dinner is bad. I wasn't saying that guys who want you to pay for your own food will treat you better. I do believe - and maybe you disagree with me on this - that guys who try to bribe girls into dating them with material gifts are usually not the type of men who value women for who they are. Again, I'm talking about guys who use gifts as the primary way to win someone over. I think that if you like a person and care about her usually there are more meaningful ways of showing it than pulling out your wallet. (Again, I feel like I have to repeat myself because large parts of my earlier posts were completely ignored, but I'm not saying that all gifts are bad - only that excessively relying on gifts to woo a partner seems pretty shallow to me.)

Maybe money is an "equalizer" as you put it your earlier post, but it's also pretty easy to throw around if you've got a lot of it. For men who are well-off, buying lavish gifts is the easiest way to impress the women they are pursuing. It doesn't necessarily require a lot of effort or thought. Maybe for one guy buying you a luxury car is less of a bother than it would be for another guy to buy you a nice dress. Just because the luxury car is worth more doesn't mean that the guy who paid for it cares about you more than the other guy. Maybe to him it was pocket change while the other guy put a lot of effort into finding out which dress you liked so he could surprise you with it.

I just don't see how a girl buying me gifts while she's constantly away on business trips or while working long hours and then coming home too tired to spend time with me would be a satisfying relationship for me no matter how high the monetary value of her gifts. I really don't understand why this became an issue of contention, but sure, if for some girls that arrangement with a man who is never there for them physically or emotionally, but does buy great gifts works and it would make them happy then by all means go for it!


Good points!

But it's not like marrying for love necessarily means marrying into poverty any more than marrying for wealth means an unhappy marriage. Overall, I think the human connection is more important than money and having that connection to build on in the beginning of a marriage gives a couple a better chance to be able to nurture their relationship into the future than in a marriage that was founded on the husband being able to provide a comfortable lifestyle to his wife. I'm not saying it can never work, it's just a less solid ground to build on, because they still have to live together.

Is a woman who doesn't have to work necessarily happier than a woman who needs to have a job to help support her family? Are wealthy people happier than poor people? Are people who married for love happier in general than people who married for wealth? For the last one, my guess would be a yes. For the others, I'm not so sure.

Again I understand that financial stability is something that has to be considered and I never said it shouldn't. There is nothing wrong with a woman screening for $ and there is nothing wrong with a man screening for age. A woman considering wealth to be the one and only important thing in a man is sort of like a man claiming that the one and only important thing in a woman is that she's a virgin. Sadly that does happen, too.

If you want to debate about whether or not men should buy lavish and expensive gifts, why don't you start a thread about that? Because this thread was about who should pay for a dinner bill. The OP example given kind of skewed things because that wasn't a normal dinner date, but your post seemed to claim that women who expect men to pay for a dinner date of any kind are arrogant, and the men willing to do so, likewise. I understand that you were still just on about the OP, but the conversation had gone in a different direction at that point, to the actual question of who should pay a normal dinner bill. So it seemed like you did insult all of those who felt the way of women being prizes worthy of being won over right off of the bat. If you want an open discussion, you should be open to being told how your post comes across without then acting contemptuous of those giving said opinions. You seem to be taking things way out of context and going into a deep philosophical musing about whether or not women should be showered with gifts and date excessively wealthy men, and whether that truly equals a better quality of life. We're talking about who we think should pay for a simple dinner date here, and what kind of first impression that makes, that's all. And the verdict is: most of us want the dinner paid for, and we have given our reasons why. If you still disagree, cool, there's some women out there (and here) who will be ok with that, but why is the issue still being pressed and turned into this other big discussion?

 

[Just_A_Guy]

Yep, anywhere from 0 to 6 hours.

Not to mention the part where they ask you an opinion about the dress they are going to wear. For some unknow reason, no matter what you say, you'll always give the wrong answer. And they'll always be choosing another dress. Not without blaming themselves first for having asked you an opinion about that. Hello, I was minding my own business. You're the one who asked.

I'm out. Don't want to derail the thread. Happy new year to @ForceTen and to all the models.

 

[Emberblaze]

Wow, a lot of the replies here are interesting to say the least.

To be honest I usually date men that are better off financially than me but that's about me wanting to see they can take care of themselves and won't want me to take care of them. Also boss ass men get me wet. Something about driven men literally makes my panties fall off.

But maybe I see things differently than say @Mila_ because I'm not planning on having children? Because I do understand the idea of wanting your future children to be well cared for. Especially as someone that grew up poor wearing 3 dollar sneakers from the bargain store. But since I have no plan to ever have any that doesn't cross my mind. I might feel differently if I had or ever wanted kids.

Or maybe it's 9 years proving myself in a male dominated industry while living in a fairly backwards part of Canada? Or maybe I'm just hardwired this way from controlling/abusive caregivers while I was growing up that felt providing anything for me meant they could treat me however.

Either way I'm shocked there weren't more women like me commenting here. (No shade to those that feel differently, you do you. I'm just confused by it is all. Like I said before, I support whatever your expectations are as long as you are upfront about them.)

The only way I ever want a guy to take care of me and spoil me is when it's related to this job. That I love. But my partner in life doesn't need to.

(But my man can take care of ALL OF my orgasms if he wants. Probably not gonna fight him on that )

 

[Mila_]

Again, maybe I wasn't clear, but what I was hinting at is that I thought how a men treats you - how he talks to you, how he listens to you, etc. - would be more important than how much money he spends on you. I was trying to keep my post on Saturday brief and I guess a lot of it got lost in translation and came across as an attack on all women who wanted any kind of "spoiling". I should have put it like this: "She can see herself as a prize who has to be won over with gifts and expects to be "spoiled" with material gifts by men in their quest to win her affections."

Well, let me put it this way, imagine you meet Stephanie online, she is a girl who treats you great, how she talks to you, how she listens to you, she is so sweet and kind... so you decide one day to meet her on a blind date. You show up to the restaurant and when Stephanie gets there turns out she looks like Andrea Dworkin (she was a radical feminist who put literally ZERO effort into her appearance as a political statement). Would you be happy and go for a 2nd date? or would you be disappointed and rush to finish your meal so you can go home?



When you don't pay for the first date this is what you look like to many girls. The fact that you are kind and sweet and listen to her and are a wonderful person is great but I would rush home and keep you on the "friend" box.

This doesn't mean being courteous and having financial security is the only attribute a man needs to date me, there are many more, but this is a pre-requisite to be considered.

 

[OliviaClarke]

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?

I always expect to pay for myself, but I also hope the guy pays. But if he doesn't then no biggie! It just stands out to me when he does. I order only things I can afford, to expect him to pay for that much on the first date is incredibly rude

 

[GoddessValkyrieRose]

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 I know someone is going to be paying then I order a reasonably priced meal without drinks and if I'm paying I order whatever I want with whatever beer I want. Why did this guy not tell his date upfront that he wanted to pay for his own items and she pay for hers? I suspect he knew this girls personality but really wanted a "chance" with her and didn't want to ruin it from the getgo by telling her how broke he was I honestly dunno why anyone wants to date someone who presents as materialistic. . I mean you can smell those people a mile away. He should have communicated better and really, thought better on the whole date beforehand.

 

[GoddessValkyrieRose]

Oh and as a side note, I don't actually think being materialism is bad exactly, just that I personally have had people try to use me financially and try to get me to buy stuff for them. Mostly men who suddenly went through hard times while we were dating .. But then it was obvious that they wanted to be taken care of and that they were laaaaaazy. They put in a good show at first tho.. Lol. Anyway .. I have only had a man pay for a date once in my life and he was kinda shitty about it.

 

[A214]

I think on the first date the asker should pay. However, if the askee knows there is not going to be a second date, maybe offering to pay for their own meal is a good way to say there isn't going to be a second date without having to say it.

I think expecting the guy to pay because it took you longer to get ready falls along the same road as the guy expecting sex because he paid. But then I'm wanting to be anyones sugar daddy.

 

[Wade W Wilson]

I'm going to go with whoever asked the other person out on the date pays, regardless of gender/sex/whatever you kooky kids are calling it this week. If you invite someone to an event you create an expectation that you will be providing the means for it unless otherwise specified and agreed to, date or otherwise.

 

[Amber LaRay]

Whoever invites, pays. Simple. If its ambiguous who invited, split.

 

[CatOwned]

Fuck paying. Gimme the woman who'll help me rob the joint.

 

[Sky_Smith]

Well, let me put it this way, imagine you meet Stephanie online, she is a girl who treats you great, how she talks to you, how she listens to you, she is so sweet and kind... so you decide one day to meet her on a blind date. You show up to the restaurant and when Stephanie gets there turns out she looks like Andrea Dworkin (she was a radical feminist who put literally ZERO effort into her appearance as a political statement). Would you be happy and go for a 2nd date? or would you be disappointed and rush to finish your meal so you can go home?

View attachment 79774

Thought I’d offer a different perspective.

I actually am a radical feminist who makes zero effort as a political statement. (Dates have been had wearing a two week worn (probably smelly) fleecy onsie, with greasy hair in a pony tail, no make up, hairy legs, arm pits and bush, not showered in a week.) And you know what. It gets me a much better quality of men who are hot and get me, are on the same page and respect me. It has elevated me from a girl to fuck/date/own/use, to a grown ass woman who can teach men how to fuck. And whoever has more money in the bank can pay. When I’m rich I shower pretty young men with activities and attention. When I have $0 and a man wants to take me out, he knows in advance he will be paying. Usually tho I just want them for sex for one night, or two/three if they are especially young, hot and woke. I am so glad I’ve broken out of any traditional ideas of what dating should be, how a woman should look or act and what I am looking for in men and what is expected of men. Cause this debate sounds like hell. All hail radical feminism.

Ps. I won’t be having any back and forth on this. It is a statement. Not a conversation. Just showing another kind of difference and opinion. Also I’m in my mid 30s and could not have been this in my 20s so no judgement on the baby lady’s and people who are still growing. Love and Byeeeeee

 

[Mila_]

Thought I’d offer a different perspective.

I actually am a radical feminist who makes zero effort as a political statement. (Dates have been had wearing a two week worn (probably smelly) fleecy onsie, with greasy hair in a pony tail, no make up, hairy legs, arm pits and bush, not showered in a week.) And you know what. It gets me a much better quality of men who are hot and get me, are on the same page and respect me. It has elevated me from a girl to fuck/date/own/use, to a grown ass woman who can teach men how to fuck. And whoever has more money in the bank can pay. When I’m rich I shower pretty young men with activities and attention. When I have $0 and a man wants to take me out, he knows in advance he will be paying. Usually tho I just want them for sex for one night, or two/three if they are especially young, hot and woke. I am so glad I’ve broken out of any traditional ideas of what dating should be, how a woman should look or act and what I am looking for in men and what is expected of men. Cause this debate sounds like hell. All hail radical feminism.

Ps. I won’t be having any back and forth on this. It is a statement. Not a conversation. Just showing another kind of difference and opinion. Also I’m in my mid 30s and could not have been this in my 20s so no judgement on the baby lady’s and people who are still growing. Love and Byeeeeee

Hard to argue you don't put effort into your appearance when you look the way you look. A fleece onesie is not a political statement. If you are a 36 24 36, hot, toned, blonde babe 99% of men will overlook your BO and your hairy legs.

 

[DJ_Pioneer]

This thread reminded me of this.