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

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

Yes you are. Get out of my sight you disgusting creature. *spits in general direction* /joke

If you're the instigator of the date then, I'd say it's generally just courteous to at least offer to pay. If you don't, I'd imagine it wouldn't make a great impression, but that's about it.

 

[Riot3000]

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

you must all have forgotten that chivalry is dead.

just splitt the bill.

this way she wont start to order a dozen dishes and the magically disappear in the bathroom.

Yep. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Don't be polite because you are man and she is woman.
Be polite to all people because you are person and they are person. <3

-

For serious now, I always split dates.
I think my boyfriend's paid for like, one of our dates- which was my birthday. So he took me out as a birthday present. So... I don't think that really counts.

That was before we had been together for ages anyway, when we still had `his money` and `my money`. Now we just kind of have `our money`.
Though when boyfriend was unemployed and I had more money than him, I used to give him the money before we went into the place, because he was worried people would think he was a cheapskate. (And the more I can avoid speaking with other human beings the better, so it was win-win).

another upside on splitting the bill is that you reduce the chance to summon a "Nice Guy ? " effect on your opposite eating partner and ultimately end up with a "friendzoned"/golddigger tale on your reputation.

we should name that phenomenon the freundenzonen effect. cause its sounds more scientific in german.

Don't do that please the "nice guy", "friendzone" and "golddigger" stuff is not a reason to go split the bill. Those words are so overblown and loaded it makes it seem like splitting hairs.

Splitting a check should happen because both parties have no issue with it not some attempt to avoid some empty labels that cause pointless internet noise.

while its true that these labels shouldnt be the reason to splitt a bill, i have to say that i witnessed a guy use these to insult another person and listing it (take care of the whole bill) up as argument to be just to do so.

so i basically said, dont give an idiot more fuel/"reason" to flame/complain.

There are plenty of insults towards guys that don't pay up the whole bill and other things. The stuff I seen said about guys who split the bill is just daunting.

I mean splitting just makes more sense to me but even in this thread one party paying by default except otherwise is so adamant is just at the ungentlemanly\inviter pay effect we got from this thread.

 

[Olas]

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?

I don't think anyone has completely proven or disproven whether all women are paid less than men for the exact same work because of the myriad of factors you need to take into account. That being said, I've seen many stats showing women are paid less but none showing women paid more, so even taking scientific inaccuracy into account the bias still seems against women.

Also, women aren't forced to have offspring, but if they do wish to have their own spawn they need to incubate it in their body for a while first, meanwhile men only need to have sex once for the same thing.

Also, periods. . . . . . . . . . . .

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

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.

...sigh. I just can't believe people still believe this shit.

Okay I think everyone here has stretched the actual meaning of "sexism" so far that I question if people actually have actually experienced an act of sexism.

For an act to be sexism require that someone is prejudice based on their sex. Prejudice is an act of injury or damage from said person's judgement or action.

The definition of sexism does NOT apply here at all and you should be ashamed that by using the word sexism only helps people who are ideologues make the word sexism mean whatever they want it to mean.

The only thing you did was make a choice of not paying for your first date. There isn't anything deep to read into it and the relationship you have is something the two of you build together. Something which will always be a different experience based on each person's standards and values. So neither side here has any sort of moral high ground regardless of how you try and make it sound. You aren't some special little snowflake here making the world a more equal place.

If you really care about equality then you actually have to find inequality in your society that is being enforced by the law and work towards changing or eliminating said laws to make inequality in terms of the law equal. What you do on a date doesn't mean anything but only says that in your relationships you don't pay for the first date. Some will accept it, and others will disagree with it.

EDIT: If you want a nice little rule do this. Whoever is inviting WHOM on an outing the person making the invite should be PAYING because it was their idea.

Sexism: sex·ism [sek-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2.
discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.

You can angry rant against the definition all day long, gender/sex expectations are sexist. Social settings can have as much if not more impact than merely legal ones.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

As with many cases, no you shouldn't have to. However, it's a nice thing to do for anyone no matter the gender. Hold the door open, pay for dinner, and offer your seat for everyone. It's a nice a thing to do if you are capable of it.

 

[Riot3000]

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?

I don't think anyone has completely proven or disproven whether all women are paid less than men for the exact same work because of the myriad of factors you need to take into account. That being said, I've seen many stats showing women are paid less but none showing women paid more, so even taking scientific inaccuracy into account the bias still seems against women.

Also, women aren't forced to have offspring, but if they do wish to have their own spawn they need to incubate it in their body for a while first, meanwhile men only need to have sex once for the same thing.

Also, periods. . . . . . . . . . . .

We can debate the wage disparity of men and women when it comes to doing the same profession but I still don't think that justify the whole men paying or dates thing unless everyone goes to expensive places for dates that requires a tux and a monacle.

Also using pregnancy and periods as a reason is just as silly and nuts more so than the "cost" for gals to go on a date justification if you want to call it that.

Or maybe your being sarcastic?

 

[generals3]

I don't think anyone has completely proven or disproven whether all women are paid less than men for the exact same work because of the myriad of factors you need to take into account. That being said, I've seen many stats showing women are paid less but none showing women paid more, so even taking scientific inaccuracy into account the bias still seems against women.

Also, women aren't forced to have offspring, but if they do wish to have their own spawn they need to incubate it in their body for a while first, meanwhile men only need to have sex once for the same thing.

Also, periods. . . . . . . . . . . .

Well, the more factors outside of gender you take into account (sector, work hours, salary negotiation etc.) the lower the gap gets. Up to a point the remainder becomes almost insignificant, and i doubt we've already had a study taking into account all the relevant factors.

On the other hand the woman is the only who can decide whether or not the offspring will actually see the daylight. I'd say having full control over the possibility of having an offspring is more than enough compensation for the 9 months of shit.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

These days it's more common for both people to pay on the first couple of dates. Some women feel uncomfortable with the man paying automatically, because a) it can come across as belittling and b) if things don't work out it's easier to make a clean break, as some 'gentlemen' can demand compensation if they don't get, ahem, a 'return on their investment'.

Of course, further down the track you can get major brownie points by paying for the whole date, so my advice is keep that one in the bag

 

[Bazaalmon]

Well, the first date with my girlfriend was in the middle of summer; We went to a nearby park for a chat and a walk. Since it was in the mid 90's at the time, I brought along some sliced watermelon that I put in the freezer for a bit before I left so it was nice and cold (She thought it was adorable) I guess that means that I paid for the first date, but being that it was just watermelon, it wasn't really an issue. We do tend to split checks or take turns paying for stuff now.

OT: I think whoever asks the other person out should at least offer to pay. If they want to split then go for it; but if someone asks you out but expects you to pay or vise versa, that is a bit of a red flag. If you're making the effort to ask someone out, then you should make the effort to make their night/afternoon/whatever as nice as possible.

 

[Olas]

I don't think anyone has completely proven or disproven whether all women are paid less than men for the exact same work because of the myriad of factors you need to take into account. That being said, I've seen many stats showing women are paid less but none showing women paid more, so even taking scientific inaccuracy into account the bias still seems against women.

Also, women aren't forced to have offspring, but if they do wish to have their own spawn they need to incubate it in their body for a while first, meanwhile men only need to have sex once for the same thing.

Also, periods. . . . . . . . . . . .

Well, the more factors outside of gender you take into account (sector, work hours, salary negotiation etc.) the lower the gap gets. Up to a point the remainder becomes almost insignificant, and i doubt we've already had a study taking into account all the relevant factors.

On the other hand the woman is the only who can decide whether or not the offspring will actually see the daylight. I'd say having full control over the possibility of having an offspring is more than enough compensation for the 9 months of shit.

Who says women have full control? Men don't have any say in the matter? I think if they're going to be expected to pay child support and actually help raise the damn thing they ought to have some say in this thing which will clearly affect them.

 

[shootthebandit]

I met this girl while out drinking, things were going well. I offered to buy her drinks she refused saying that I didnt have too just because I was a guy. I insisted once again (not to sound cheap) and she ended up buying me drinks all night. I thought it was brilliant not just because i was being bought drinks but because its nice to see gender roles being broken down....but mostly the free drinks though

 

[StriderShinryu]

As with many cases, no you shouldn't have to. However, it's a nice thing to do for anyone no matter the gender. Hold the door open, pay for dinner, and offer your seat for everyone. It's a nice a thing to do if you are capable of it.

At the end of the day, that's really what it comes down to for me. I really do think that many in this thread are trying to draw water from an inch deep pond. To me, it really is just as simple as opening a door for someone or offering them a seat on the bus (great examples since there isn't even any money involved unlike in the date scenario). It's not the "nice guy" way of doing things, it's the genuinely nice guy way of doing things.

 

[Olas]

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?

I don't think anyone has completely proven or disproven whether all women are paid less than men for the exact same work because of the myriad of factors you need to take into account. That being said, I've seen many stats showing women are paid less but none showing women paid more, so even taking scientific inaccuracy into account the bias still seems against women.

Also, women aren't forced to have offspring, but if they do wish to have their own spawn they need to incubate it in their body for a while first, meanwhile men only need to have sex once for the same thing.

Also, periods. . . . . . . . . . . .

We can debate the wage disparity of men and women when it comes to doing the same profession but I still don't think that justify the whole men paying or dates thing unless everyone goes to expensive places for dates that requires a tux and a monacle.

Also using pregnancy and periods as a reason is just as silly and nuts more so than the "cost" for gals to go on a date justification if you want to call it that.

Or maybe your being sarcastic?

Well I wasn't being sarcastic for what it's worth. Somewhat unserious no doubt, but not sarcastic.

Though I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, so men should only pay if the restaurant is expensive? Wut? Why would that matter?

I'm not trying to make things perfectly balance out dollar for dollar. I'm just saying if women are already getting the short end of the genetic stick in some regards perhaps having men pay for meals isn't the craziest thing ever.

 

[Bellvedere]

When it comes to restaurants - I'm on the "whoever did the asking out pays" side. At least on the first date, subsequently I think it's reasonable to take it in turns.

Splits bills are really awkward. Most places I know won't split the bill. That means you have to take cash, calculate what you each owe and then work out how to split the change, which, you know, just feels so stingy. Especially worse if one person sucks at math, then you might have to correct them on how they calculated something. Alternatively you can split the bill down the middle, but that could also be awkward if someone's meal/drinks was much more expensive than the other's. It's really a situation that would be much better avoided, especially when you're really just starting a relationship. When you're very comfortable with someone, then it doesn't feel that weird, but by time you're in a steady relationship, I just don't see why you wouldn't take it in turns.

For other activities, where it's normal that people just pay for themselves (or cinema where one person can grab tickets, and the other snacks) I think it's more reasonable.

 

[Riot3000]

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?

I don't think anyone has completely proven or disproven whether all women are paid less than men for the exact same work because of the myriad of factors you need to take into account. That being said, I've seen many stats showing women are paid less but none showing women paid more, so even taking scientific inaccuracy into account the bias still seems against women.

Also, women aren't forced to have offspring, but if they do wish to have their own spawn they need to incubate it in their body for a while first, meanwhile men only need to have sex once for the same thing.

Also, periods. . . . . . . . . . . .

We can debate the wage disparity of men and women when it comes to doing the same profession but I still don't think that justify the whole men paying or dates thing unless everyone goes to expensive places for dates that requires a tux and a monacle.

Also using pregnancy and periods as a reason is just as silly and nuts more so than the "cost" for gals to go on a date justification if you want to call it that.

Or maybe your being sarcastic?

Well I wasn't being sarcastic for what it's worth. Somewhat unserious no doubt, but not sarcastic.

Though I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, so men should only pay if the restaurant is expensive? Wut? Why would that matter?

I'm not trying to make things perfectly balance out dollar for dollar. I'm just saying if women are already getting the short end of the genetic stick in some regards perhaps having men pay for meals isn't the craziest thing ever.

If you hold true to guys paying then fine but the whole women have the short end of "genetic stick" angle seems a bit excessive.

Say you go for coffee as some suggested sure picking it up is nice but if she pays for her own drink I don't think its that bad of a snafu nor just balancing dollar to dollar its just one way to do things.

 

[grey_space]

No, it's not bad of you at all to not pay for the first date. It's not being ungentlemanly and it certainly isn't sexist. When a guy offers me that he'll pay I always say either "If you buy then, then I'll buy us ___" or "No, let me pay or my half". What is more important is that the date went well and that it was fun. For my first date my boyfriend paid for our cinema tickets, I paid for the popcorn and then I paid for our burger king dinner. People aren't made of money, afterall.

I totally agree. It's nice to buy stuff for someone you like but money is hard to come by. I think that say, offering to pay for the food but the girl pays for the drinks after would be ok, Or the example above which I've used myself: "How about I pay for the tickets and you buy the junk food?" every girl I've said that to has agreed straight away, even sometimes going to the trouble of insisting on getting the first round in the pub afterwards to even up things financially.

When I was dating my girlfriend (we live together now) we used to take turns buying the lunches and dinners for each other.

But on thinking about it any girl that wouldn't even offer to put her hand in her pocket to pay for SOME thing on the first date is a girl that I wouldn't want to hang out with too much anyway.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

I always pay for dates/valentines. And I have good reason, my gf cant legally work yet, so she currently lives off funding from her parents until she gets residency. And me essentially getting her parents to pay for stuff like that for us? Not happening.

Where the hell do you live that your girlfriend can't legally work?

I assume it is work visa related.

Bingo. Shes visiting here in NZ and she was born in the States. And to get a work visa you basically need to have a job already organized and in a fairly decent position.

OT:But ya overall, offer if you can, but if you asked for the date you should pay regardless of gender.

 

[Flames66]

I think that say, offering to pay for the food but the girl pays for the drinks after would be ok, Or the example above which I've used myself: "How about I pay for the tickets and you buy the junk food?" every girl I've said that to has agreed straight away, even sometimes going to the trouble of insisting on getting the first round in the pub afterwards to even up things financially.

When I was dating my girlfriend (we live together now) we used to take turns buying the lunches and dinners for each other.

But on thinking about it any girl that wouldn't even offer to put her hand in her pocket to pay for SOME thing on the first date is a girl that I wouldn't want to hang out with too much anyway.

Seems massively over complicated to me. I don't understand why people can't just pay for their own stuff.