When you say pay, you mean pay for the both of you or just yourself? If it's just yourself, then you'd be a real douchebag to not pay. If it was for the both of you, just pay for yourself. It's a blind date. If your date expects a complete stranger to pay for his/her meal even after you both know there won't be a second one, then your date is an entitled dirt bag.2HF said:
Poll: Question for the guys...
- Thread starter 2HF
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Pretty much how I see it. Usually I don't mind going Dutch, but I've had some guys who see me pay for dinner once and then ASSUME that I'll pay every single time for them.Lenvoran said:
I would still pay even though I wouldn't want to. I don't need more people in the world thinking I'm a jerk.
The expectation that one side will pay when a date goes badly (really, the expectation that one side will pay ever) is only really present when you date people who assume that relationships will be asymmetrical (at least with respect to economics). I don't date those people.
I often pay when I go out, but that's because I can often afford to and it seems like a nice thing to do. I don't do it because it's expected of me and I would never feel awkward assuming that the other party would be willing to split the bill.
The only exception I can think of would be if the failure of the date was somehow your fault specifically, but that's just as true for either person involved in the date. It's not an issue stemming from some antiquated sense of "chivalry", it's just an issue of being a nice, understanding person.
If a date went badly and it was no one's fault and then the person I was with became angry that I didn't pay, I would take it as further indication that they were not a great relationship candidate.
Edit: Obviously if you invite them out saying something like "let me take you out to dinner", then you have a responsibility to pay regardless. Again, it has nothing to do with male chivalry, just ordinary responsibility and common sense.
I often pay when I go out, but that's because I can often afford to and it seems like a nice thing to do. I don't do it because it's expected of me and I would never feel awkward assuming that the other party would be willing to split the bill.
The only exception I can think of would be if the failure of the date was somehow your fault specifically, but that's just as true for either person involved in the date. It's not an issue stemming from some antiquated sense of "chivalry", it's just an issue of being a nice, understanding person.
If a date went badly and it was no one's fault and then the person I was with became angry that I didn't pay, I would take it as further indication that they were not a great relationship candidate.
Edit: Obviously if you invite them out saying something like "let me take you out to dinner", then you have a responsibility to pay regardless. Again, it has nothing to do with male chivalry, just ordinary responsibility and common sense.
Pretty straight forward and I test women with my humor. Have some snobby, uptight rich girl that is looking at me for a free meal, well then she can bugger off. Of course I can sit there and tell within the first 10 minutes of meeting someone if I am going to go through with it. I would go into the bathroom and pretend like I got a phone call. Kindly tell her that I have to go, if I don't like her, well then I don't care, end of story.
I try to keep things cheap. I'm a starving art student and can't afford anything more than coffee or whatever. then it's a good impression that you pay, but you don't spend too much and that way you really can just relax and talk with them in a more casual setting and not have to sit through an entire dinner or whatever if it goes bad, although to be honest I've never been on a date that was so bad I couldn't wait to get away from her so I don't really know what to define as a 'horrible' date.
EarnedCpt.Muddles said:
More like nagged us to near-death for em.
Ladies, ladies, stop hitting me please. HEY. Watch the HAIR. For gods sake. STOP IT. Thats going to leave a dooney and bourke heart shaped mark!
You have a rather open interpretation of what prostitution is.Mr.Numbers said:
Doth ye have boobs m'lady? Indeed you do! Enjoy the shilling, lady of the night
I wouldn't really want to go on a 'conventional' date with someone. Why does there have to be pointless rules and regulations to meeting potential partners? Can't two people just go out and enjoy some time together?
Maybe my attitude on this explains why I've never been in relationship, but I'm pretty convinced that anyone that wants to follow through with all of that wouldn't be the kind of person I would want to be in a relationship with. I guess I would be willing to give it a try, because I've found I usually have to come to terms with all of the social norms society throws at me to get somewhere. But I would kind of think the last place I should have to go through a bunch of superficial crap is when trying to form deep, romantic relationships with people. It just doesn't seem like it would work out well.
Maybe my attitude on this explains why I've never been in relationship, but I'm pretty convinced that anyone that wants to follow through with all of that wouldn't be the kind of person I would want to be in a relationship with. I guess I would be willing to give it a try, because I've found I usually have to come to terms with all of the social norms society throws at me to get somewhere. But I would kind of think the last place I should have to go through a bunch of superficial crap is when trying to form deep, romantic relationships with people. It just doesn't seem like it would work out well.
Yeah. If you asked me out, I'll let you pay. If it's not a date then I'm going to assume we're paying for our own meals. If I asked you out, I'll be paying unless you insist on going Dutch and I won't fuss too much over it. If I know that you can't especially afford to pay for my meals and you asked me out anyway, I'll typically bring up going Dutch unless you insist on paying my way.Mallefunction said:
Who pays doesn't really matter to me but I don't like being taken advantage of. I'm more in it for whom I'm with rather than what we make.
I prefer the who was asking out pays tactic, but ofcourse girls usually like to forget that.
How the date goes shouldn't factor in who pays, but it does sting when it's a horrible experience that you haveto pay for.
Best practice is not to make your first date a dinner date, if that goes bad it will be one torturous bloody date.
How the date goes shouldn't factor in who pays, but it does sting when it's a horrible experience that you haveto pay for.
Best practice is not to make your first date a dinner date, if that goes bad it will be one torturous bloody date.
It sure does seem that way, doesn't it.ChildofGallifrey said:
Also, I refuse to believe that chivalry is dead. As long as someone is being kind to a woman for the sake of being kind to a woman, chivalry exists.
Captcha: always there (just like chivalry)
Unless I already really, really know the girl, and we started going out on a date because we had been friends and there were lingering feelings for a long time, a first date would be dutch for me.
Just because of the possibility of something like that happening
Just because of the possibility of something like that happening
Well, I've been happily married for 5 years now, but when I was single I flat out refused to date women who lacked the self-respect to be self-sufficient. For that matter, I've always refused to date women who aren't feminists - I consider myself an intelligent and confident guy, and I expect my partners (whether male or female) to be equally self-sufficient.2HF said:
So, there's a good chance that I wouldn't pay, because we'd already be going dutch.
I would pay if it was something that was very much 'my' thing - say if I had asked her to come to the theatre to see a play that I was interested in. In that event, I figure that I'm the one inviting her, so I'm happy to pay for it. It isn't the money issue, but rather the kind of women who are attracted to that sort of thing. I'm just not likely to be interested in, or get on that well with, a woman who has traditional ideas of gender roles (being an openly bisexual marxist and all...) so it's better just to filter out the ones like that, rather than playing along when the chances of me being interested are minimal.
Not saying that I don't pay if I'm taking my wife out for dinner for her birthday or similar, and the same applied when I was single. Then again, she earns more than I do (as did most of my girlfriends over the years). I just don't like the idea of someone dating me because they want to be impressed in material ways. When I was single I even used to avoid telling dates that I was a lawyer (was then, am a uni professor these days), just to screen out anyone that was going out with me for my job.
i usually expect to go dutch, but offer to pay at the end of the meal etc.
if she offers to split it, thats a big tick next to her name.
its not the 1900's anymore and i aint hired an escort for the evening.
if she offers to split it, thats a big tick next to her name.
its not the 1900's anymore and i aint hired an escort for the evening.
I don't date women. If I ever have a date, we split it. It's how the gays do it. Probably. I really don't know.2HF said:
depends really. most of the time it is even split though. some times if it is food+event, one pays for food, the other pays for event.
unless there is some previous paying condition obviously, but I've never been in that situation.
unless there is some previous paying condition obviously, but I've never been in that situation.
Well, it really does depend here. If it was just awkwardness, I'd probably pay, since that'd probably be faster anyway. If they were a crazy racist or something I'd probably make an excuse to go to the bathroom and leg it.