Poll: Am I disgusting for not paying for the first date?

[generals3]

"because thats what a gentlemen would so..."

you must all have forgotten that chivalry is dead.

I was told it was born again:

Spoiler

Anywho. I personally avoid all this trouble by not going on dates. And in a bar i usually never pay anything for "strangers". (I do however very often pay for friends, male and female)

 

[snekadid]

Reminds me of something I read

Spoiler

I want to thank you for that picture, me and the people I send it to will enjoy it for a long time XD

OT: Bottom line, you are both individual, independent adults. If they are not individuals, then there are bigger problems than the check. If they are not independent, then you may need to look closer at this relationship. If they are not an adult, then you have SERIOUS problems, far larger than a simple check.

Those three cases settled, you are both looking for a relationship, which is a partnership between two people on the basis of mutual attraction(physically and mentally optimally), and thus should be approached on a equal footing. This antiqued tradition that has no place logically in this time and in fact is damaging due to it supporting other antiqued viewpoints. If they are not willing to approached this on equal footing, then they are likely not worth the effort and you should quit now.

 

[Harleykin]

i voted the fifth option: split it.

there are no obligations for men to pay.

even though i might do it if i'm in the mood or just have some cash to spare. i like to share with firends i like and i don't care who it is.

 

[maxben]

Nah there's no problem. I've done the same before.

My reasoning is not that I think it's sexist, it's that I'm not fucking made of money.

I'm gonna agree with this.

I'm all for splitting the bill 50/50 (or just paying for whatever you had) on first dates. I think it's more fair on both people.

The fact is that some people just can't afford to pay for a dinner for two, even if they really like the person they asked out.

By all means, offer to pay for it all if you can afford it, and want to. Personally I'd turn that down and just pay for myself anyway, though. I'd feel too guilty otherwise.

That's actually a very important point. I tend to pick the bill with girls and my good friends because I happen to have more money then they usually, not because I feel obligated to.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

I think if you invited someone on a date you should be prepared to pay.
That said, I was always disappointed in the women who atleast didn't put out. Joking. I was disappointed in the women who didn't atleast offer to go half, or pay for a few drinks.

 

[kickyourass]

I'm of the opinion that the one who asks should generally be the one who pays, so if you asked them out you should pay for the date and they should pay for the date if they asked you. Though if the other person offers to pay, I say let them.

Attributing 'sexism' or 'gentlemanly behavior' or whatever to this ONE part of the date seems a bit extreme to me and if THIS one part of the date is the deal breaker, you were probably on thin ice to begin with.

 

[generals3]

I think if you invited someone on a date you should be prepared to pay.

I can't really agree with this. If the person accepts to go out with you it should be because they want to go out with you and not have a free meal. Consequently there is no reason to pay everything just because you invited. (unless off course the arrangement was already explicitly made)

 

[IndomitableSam]

It's not just in dating... if you ask someone on a date - or invite someone out to dinner formally, social convention is you TRY to pay. If it's a mutual decision, paying is fair game.

That can kinda get sticky and people can insist "Well, you invited me" and such... so it all depends on how cheap the other party is, too.

Basically, if someone asked me to go to dinner with them, or says "Can I take you to dinner?" then I think they're offering to pay ... But I always make sure I'm able to pay for myself, anyway. If someone says "Hey, let's go out for dinner", then it's casual and I don't expect to be treated.

However, if you're in a relationship... these are modern times and I'd assume the partner (either gender) has a stable job and enough money to afford food (not that I'd be dating someone if they didn't, but everyone's different). So pay is equal now. If I ask a guy "want to go out for coffee?" I initiated it, so I might offer to pay, but wouldn't say no if he wanted to pay for his own. But I probably wouldn't let him pay for me since I was the one who did the inviting.

... Social conventions are hard.

 

[persephone]

No, it's not disgusting. Either you should split the bill, or whoever has the larger income should pay for everything. I went on a date once with someone who was between jobs and didn't really have any money at the time; I, on the other hand, had a food budget that was more than adequate to comfortably cover the meal. So, when it came time for the bill, I wanted to pay for us both, since I could afford it and he couldn't.

However, he insisted to the point of being angry with me that he would pay for us both, end of story. I ended up giving in just so we wouldn't have a fight in the middle of the restaurant; he was really going to lose his shit over the issue, like his very manhood was tied to this idea of him paying for the meals.

Needless to say, the relationship didn't last long after that. I was left insulted and angered by the sheer irrationality of "I'm the man so I must pay even when it makes zero financial sense and me paying results in me spitting on my girlfriend's generosity."

I think you're taking the right approach, wanting to build a relationship on equality and common sense. Your friend is not only wrong, but I hope that he's willing to listen to any women he'd like to date if they want to help pay, and that he doesn't insult them by refusing them the option of pitching in to cover costs. Insisting the man must pay is sexist, stupid, and can hurt everyone involved.

 

[Legion]

I'm of the opinion that the one who asks should generally be the one who pays, so if you asked them out you should pay for the date and they should pay for the date if they asked you. Though if the other person offers to pay, I say let them.

Especially if the person doing the inviting is the one choosing where to go. If somebody invites another out to dinner and chooses somewhere very expensive, it isn't particularly fair to expect the other person to pay for it. Not unless they are made aware and still okay with going.

I think it is also worth pointing out that insisting on paying, even when the other person is happy to do so isn't polite. Being polite is respecting another persons wishes. If somebody says they want to contribute, then it is good manners to let them.

What it comes down to is respect for the other person. Convention be damned.

 

[Riot3000]

Honestly I have never even dealt with or heard this whole inviter is expected to pay thing.

With the exception of family events if I go somewhere with somebody I fully expect to pay for whatever the activity is. There have been times where I have covered or been covered by my friends from time to time but those were spur of the moment rather than expected.

Like I said this inviter is too pay on the grounds of an invite thing doesn't quite click if I get invited somewhere I am bring my own money and the idea of the inviter covering the cost won't be considered unless brought up.

 

[Fox12]

I always pay for the first date, but I'm old fashioned. It's not an issue of sexism, it's an issue of respect. I respect her enough to take her out the first night and pay the bills. I also open the car door for her. Later, after we've dated awhile, that could change. Maybe she'll pay for me, or we'll split the bill. That's fine. But I consider it disrespectful (and ungentlemanly) to make her pay for your first date.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

I think if you invited someone on a date you should be prepared to pay.

I can't really agree with this. If the person accepts to go out with you it should be because they want to go out with you and not have a free meal. Consequently there is no reason to pay everything just because you invited. (unless off course the arrangement was already explicitly made)

but you offered, why assume someone you barely know can afford to go for a meal at place X? or afford any of the things suggested.

that said, the rest of the quote you left out did state I'd be disappointed if they didnt contribute.

 

[generals3]

but you offered, why assume someone you barely know can afford to go for a meal at place X? or afford any of the things suggested.

that said, the rest of the quote you left out did state I'd be disappointed if they didnt contribute.

Well i guess it depends on what you call "inviting on a date". If you say something along the lines "let me offer you a dinner" than yes off course you should offer to pay. But if you say something like "do you want to go out on a dinner with me?", than no. Nothing there would suggest that you intend to pay. It's like when i ask friends if they want to go to a party i'm not expected to pay for their entrance.

And I wasn't really addressing your personal stance, it was more about the whole "if you invite you should offer to pay everything" part. So the part about you being disappointed was of little relevance.

 

[SeanSeanston]

I was watching a UK show called 'First Dates' in which a man insists he will pay for the woman as if he doesn't it's disgusting.

Lol oldpeople.

The whole "gentleman" thing in this case is just a trick to exploit the gullible.

Even if you weren't a gentleman by not paying (or offering to), then she's probably not a lady if she doesn't offer to go halves ^_o

IMO... I guess for practicality's sake, going halves on everything is probably going to be awkward, so I guess just alternating with each paying every second date probably makes most sense. As for who pays first, I really don't think it matters.

Well, you should at least offer to pay. Sure, it's a stupid tradition but it's also not a big deal, totally irrelevant to actual gender equality issues.

Dunno really TBH. It can easily be argued that it serves to reinforce the idea that it's ok for men to have to pay for women's s*** in general. And that it still existing at all is a marker of various things about society.

If it's obvious you're going on a date, and if you're the one who asked for the date, then yes you absolutely should pay. Disgusting is a harsh word for the situation, but it's definitely ungentlemanly.

Oh yes and there's this of course as well. I guess the one asking probably should pay... which of course 99.9% translates as "the man will always pay", lettuce be cereal :3... but I think in an ideal world it should/could go like this:
1. The one who asked offers to pay.
2. The other offers to split it.
3. Maybe the one who asked just pays it and tells the other that they can get the next one?

It is simple:

You should offer to pay. If she declines your offer, that's okay. But you should be mentally and financially prepared to pay.

Yes, romance is very female-centric in regards to the money spending in our society (Weddings, Proposals, Vallentine's Day). Take it as balance for the fact that women are being paid less for the same jobs.

Or how about for the fact that they're forced to haul around a baby for 9 laborious months. I don't envy that.

Well

A. Women are not paid less for the same job. This is a complete fabrication that has been dispelled many times but refuses to die (maybe because it's convenient for the majority of the electorate?).
B. Women are not forced to haul around anything for 9 months. Women aren't forced to do anything in society, let's be honest.

And in a hypothetical fantasy world where men are paid more for doing the same work: would it not then be justifiable for men to be paid more, if we keep us this idea of men having to often pay more for the same things in life?

 

[SeanSeanston]

I think if you invited someone on a date you should be prepared to pay.

Indeed, I agree with this... I think there a lot of subtle social interactions going on here.

Like you say: the one inviting someone on date should be PREPARED to pay... but I also think that the one accepting should probably be PREPARED to split it too. All in the name of good manners, and what actually does happen in the end isn't necessarily the point. Alternate, split it, wutever.

 

[norashepard]

I always just pay for the food I actually ate? Like, I don't know how hard a concept that is for people? I suppose I would pay for the first date if I was the initiator of said date, because I asked for it, so I should pay. Otherwise I would just split it.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

And I wasn't really addressing your personal stance, it was more about the whole "if you invite you should offer to pay everything" part. So the part about you being disappointed was of little relevance.

ah, I was stating my personal stance, probably where the confussion came from.

Or how about for the fact that they're forced to haul around a baby for 9 laborious months. I don't envy that.

forced? jebus! its a date not a raping!

I think if you invited someone on a date you should be prepared to pay.

Indeed, I agree with this... I think there a lot of subtle social interactions going on here.

Like you say: the one inviting someone on date should be PREPARED to pay... but I also think that the one accepting should probably be PREPARED to split it too. All in the name of good manners, and what actually does happen in the end isn't necessarily the point. Alternate, split it, wutever.

yeah, nice summary/elaboration, with you there.

 

[Riot3000]

Man I never knew being so hung up on inviter and acceptee paying or splitting.

I guess suggesting separate checks will just cause the world to burn I guess.