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

[Spiridion]

As someone that doesn't really date the opposite sex, I prefer systems that work regardless of the sex/gender of the people going on the date. So generally I have a preference for going dutch on the first date. I also have friends who prefer to have whoever did the inviting or picked the location pay, and some others that just alternate who pays for every date (they still usually go dutch for the first, since they haven't figured out if there's going to be a second yet). For long-term relationships, I'd say people should probably pay according to their income.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

You probably should, to start off with. It's not really inherently sexist in my opinion because guys generally have to be the ones putting themselves forward and organising things. It's like you're the demand and she's the supply. Naturally it goes somewhat the other way, but it leans that way. That may be a bit sexist.

After a while though you definitely shouldn't be expected to pay for everything.

 

[lunavixen]

If it were me (as a female), no, I'd rather split the bill, or at least partially contribute, if the date is insistent then I'd be okay with it, but i'm happy to pay for my share. I don't think it's fair to foist all the cost onto one person (or hold the expectation of it) for the first date or few dates as most people don't earn huge amounts of money.

 

[Exterminas]

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, first of: The connection between women being paid less and our societies bizarre norms for romance was supposed to be a joke.

With that out of the way: Which point do you think is false? That women are being paid less or that romance usually revolves around the females?

 

[Evil Smurf]

I like paying, so I try to anyway. I'm that good!

 

[Holy_Handgrenade]

I wouldn't say disgusting at all. However, on a first date, where the girl doesn't know you, and your views on not paying, she could very easily write you off as inconsiderate.

You might find that even though there is a huge push for woman to be on the same ground as men (and why shouldn't they be?) You'll most always get bonus points for holding the door, paying for dinner during the date, and so on. Because despite equality, it's a generous thing to do. It's still very much a world that is, unfortunately, controlled by men. So at least pay for her dinner. You're not facing a issues like a glass ceiling or maternity leave in your future on the career path.

However, if you get money out to pay and she stops you and insists on paying for her own food, so be it.

I always play it safe. I'd rather put an extra $10-$20 down if it means a potential relationship.

And I have a girlfriend after my last date, so consider this is a post from a man who has had success in the dating scene.

I don't have a problem with it because most girls are happy to go dutch as is my current girlfriend and even if I was single relationships aren't t hat slim that I need to grab one by buying one. Plus the type of girl who is swayed by you paying for her shouldn't really be the sort of girl you want to be in a relationship

For anyone who is wondering if she flat out refuses to go dutch, sure I'll pay out of politeness but I don't really want someone who clings to that sort of social convention so I wouldn't want to see her again anyway.

 

[generals3]

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.

In countries where there is a right to abort the sole decider is the carrier. A man has no say whatsoever. Well at least if the woman doesn't care about his opinion.

 

[generals3]

I feel that whoever asked the person out should pay for the first date. If you asked her out, you pay. Only because I feel that if you asked someone out and had them pay, you're a dick. In that situation that makes it so you said please pay for me for this and that is just rude.

I still don't get that logic. Unless the act of you paying for the entire bill was implied during the invitation. Whenever i ask friends to go to a party they don't expect me to pay their entrance either.

 

[LegendaryVKickr]

I wouldn't say disgusting at all. However, on a first date, where the girl doesn't know you, and your views on not paying, she could very easily write you off as inconsiderate.

You might find that even though there is a huge push for woman to be on the same ground as men (and why shouldn't they be?) You'll most always get bonus points for holding the door, paying for dinner during the date, and so on. Because despite equality, it's a generous thing to do. It's still very much a world that is, unfortunately, controlled by men. So at least pay for her dinner. You're not facing a issues like a glass ceiling or maternity leave in your future on the career path.

However, if you get money out to pay and she stops you and insists on paying for her own food, so be it.

I always play it safe. I'd rather put an extra $10-$20 down if it means a potential relationship.

And I have a girlfriend after my last date, so consider this is a post from a man who has had success in the dating scene.

I don't have a problem with it because most girls are happy to go dutch as is my current girlfriend and even if I was single relationships aren't t hat slim that I need to grab one by buying one. Plus the type of girl who is swayed by you paying for her shouldn't really be the sort of girl you want to be in a relationship

For anyone who is wondering if she flat out refuses to go dutch, sure I'll pay out of politeness but I don't really want someone who clings to that sort of social convention so I wouldn't want to see her again anyway.

Fair enough. I totally agree with you, if the girl really considers it a dealbreaker if you don't pay, she's really not worth your time. I was more thinking along the lines of "it can't hurt to make a good impression". It took me three dates before I found a girl who was right for me (I've been using dating sites lately to get into meeting girls, due to everyone at my school is self-absorbed and it's hard to meet new people at a community college), and I paid every time. But if any girl had rejected me because of something so trivial, I would have laughed her off as being a bad match for me anyways.

I tend to be a bit of a people-pleaser when it comes to relationships, almost to a fault. I treat the girl like royalty, usually. Most girls I've dated have had a history of douchey boyfriends, so they love me for all the flattering gestures and gentlemanly things I do. So it's hard for me to turn down being the gentleman, even if it's not necessary and hurts my wallet. But I'd very much respect a girl who is willing to go halfsies.

For the record, I did vote "No" in the poll. Previous people have argued it's not fair to men, and I can agree with that as well. I'm thinking at this point me and my girlfriend will most likely switch off who pays.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

If you invite someone to something, you pay for it, and vice versa
Is that so difficult?

 

[Schadrach]

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, first of: The connection between women being paid less and our societies bizarre norms for romance was supposed to be a joke.

With that out of the way: Which point do you think is false? That women are being paid less or that romance usually revolves around the females?

Probably the women being paid less, since it just plain isn't true when you start accounting for confounding variables. To the point that a young, single, childless, urban woman who is willing to put in the same hours as her male counterparts actually makes slightly more than a similarly young, single, childless, urban man putting in the same hours.

The biggest difference in income comes from differences in time worked. There's a reason why people talking about how much less money women make never compare in terms of wage rate (but instead in terms of total compensation), and it's because overtime is a huge deal (a person working 40 hours a week vs another working 48 hours and receiving time and a half for everything over 40 means Ms-40-hours is only "earning 77 (or 40/52) cents on the dollar" of Mr-48-hours).

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.

[/quote]

In many places it's even worse than that -- a woman who conceives through sexual assault against a man still means the man owe her support. There have been several cases, and either it's a "best interest of the child" argument or a "not completely innocent" (that phrase being used in a case where a woman conceived as a result of statutory rape -- notably she was never charged, but declaring him the father of the child meant it was necessarily statutory rape as he was below the age of consent).

It shows something about the differences in how we treat men and women that demanding a man to pay the woman who sexually assaulted him for a couple of decades or face jail is par the course, but then when women get more lenient treatment than men from the court system in general, why should we expect anything other than men being punished for being sexually assaulted?

 

[Riot3000]

If you invite someone to something, you pay for it, and vice versa
Is that so difficult?

Is bringing your own money and paying your way unless stated other wise really so difficult?

I feel that whoever asked the person out should pay for the first date. If you asked her out, you pay. Only because I feel that if you asked someone out and had them pay, you're a dick. In that situation that makes it so you said please pay for me for this and that is just rude.

I still don't get that logic. Unless the act of you paying for the entire bill was implied during the invitation. Whenever i ask friends to go to a party they don't expect me to pay their entrance either.

See that is how it works to me. I or someone else would say something like "I got this" or "Its on me" if the invitation was made if not even if say the women asked me out I am still going to bring my own money because in my head I think don't she should be the one paying for just it because of invitation alone.

 

[Draconis1025]

I follow a simple rule, and it has nothing to do with whether it is the first date or not. Whoever extended the invitation for the date pays. The other person is your guest, and therefore you are treating them to the evening. Guy or girl, whoever does the asking does the paying.

HOWEVER: If you both agree to split the check, that is the prerogative of your date. And that is totally fine. But as to whether it makes one a "gentleman" is irrelevant; gender doesn't matter in this case.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

If you must have a rule of thumb, it has nothing to do with the genders involved. Whomever asks for the date is, by default, the one who pays. Hell, that rule applies to almost anything. You invite a friend out for dinner, you should be prepared to pay. If you throw a party, you should be prepared to pay for everything

 

[A BigCup of Tea]

if i've asked her out then sure i'll pay i have no problem with it...unless she orders majorly expensive food or a fuck load of food then that fat ***** can pay for it herself haha

 

[TechNoFear]

This is a subject I've debated with my friends at length, when a friend stated that a guy should pay for a woman on dates.

I think it is a generational thing, from when women were less empowered (~50 years ago).

It is part the male proving he is capable of providing for the woman.

And part necessity as women were less likely to have well paid jobs (and would not be able to afford to go on a date with you).

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I feel like the guy should foot the first date. Not every date after that, not every date for that relationship afterward, and not if the date specifically states they don't want you paying for the first date. It's just tradition, iffin you ask me, nothing wrong with it.

 

[maninahat]

I remember my first date well, and how I had absolutely no money in the bank. I basically had to shake all my house mates down for whatever cash they had on them at the time, and went with that. On the date itself, I paid for the meals, she paid for the cinema tickets. She would have felt embarrassed if I had insisted on paying for everything. That was probably the best way to do it.

 

[Griffolion]

-snip-

It's down to the two of you, and what's a comfortable paradigm for the two of you. If you're okay with paying, go for it. If she is, that's cool, let her do it. If you're both okay with splitting the bill, that's fine.

 

[Eamar]

I feel like the guy should foot the first date. Not every date after that, not every date for that relationship afterward, and not if the date specifically states they don't want you paying for the first date. It's just tradition, iffin you ask me, nothing wrong with it.

Just because something's a tradition doesn't mean it's right or that you have to follow it. As others have pointed out, this is a tradition that stems from the idea (and past reality) that women can't support themselves financially and that men have to splash the cash to make a good impression.

If the guy genuinely wants to pay and the woman is genuinely ok with that, then by all means go ahead. But there's no reason at all to justify the idea that men "should" pay in this day and age.