Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's not go all ad hominem because we can't debate, okay? Bottom line: if I go out on a date with you, I'm not paying you for your time. You are not a hooker.
Granted, there's some rhetorical hyperbole at work here; one's opinion of me for using it is irrelevant on this forum and within this context.
You are not guaranteed a free ride with me. You date me because you want to be with me, not so I can buy stuff for you. If you have a problem with that, go be somebody else's princess. Clear?
Let's not go all ad hominem because we can't debate, okay? Bottom line: if I go out on a date with you, I'm not paying you for your time. You are not a hooker.
Granted, there's some rhetorical hyperbole at work here; one's opinion of me for using it is irrelevant on this forum and within this context.
You are not guaranteed a free ride with me. You date me because you want to be with me, not so I can buy stuff for you. If you have a problem with that, go be somebody else's princess. Clear?
I for one am sick of debating on such a tired subject. My comments are in the archives if anybody’s interested.
Why would we have a problem with it...? The Princes and Princesses will continue on their merry ways however they see them fit.
I for one am sick of debating on such a tired subject. My comments are in the archives if anybody’s interested.
Why would we have a problem with it...? The Princes and Princesses will continue on their merry ways however they see them fit.
Then why post here? And why talk about me or anyone else in the third person, as if they're not going to read it? Those are all attempts to disparage someone without actually addressing their points.
So here it is: why do you feel entitled to have a man pay for you, as an implied, preset condition for you going out with him? And if you don't, then why are you criticizing me in an indirect way for combating that perspective?
Then why post here? And why talk about me or anyone else in the third person, as if they're not going to read it? Those are all attempts to disparage someone without actually addressing their points.
So here it is: why do you feel entitled to have a man pay for you, as an implied, preset condition for you going out with him? And if you don't, then why are you criticizing me in an indirect way for combating that perspective?
I don't feel "entitled". But here's the deal. Someone INVITES me to dinner...they are the host. Their tab. Not mine. To consider paying for dinner to be "paying for time" is really skeevy, IMO.
I don't feel "entitled". But here's the deal. Someone INVITES me to dinner...they are the host. Their tab. Not mine. To consider paying for dinner to be "paying for time" is really skeevy, IMO.
Of course you think so. You believe you deserve to be paid for your time, and yet you refuse to see how that is tantamount to being a paid escort.
As for the "invite" argument: You know full well that men most often do the asking. Therefore, given your reasoning, you've automatically locked him into a pay to play scenario. If you're to date him, he must have asked, because he's more likely to ask you, than you him. Consequently, he must pay, or he is {insert whatever pejorative term fits your fancy and vocabulary.}
And now you'll reply with a whole lotta "I ask men all the time. Blah, blah, blah...." because there's no way I can present proof otherwise. But it doesn't matter, for both your premise and conclusion is that someone who doesn't pay is "skeevy."
I think the better question would be "How's it working for you on SECOND dates?" lol....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venusian_Artist
Then why post here? And why talk about me or anyone else in the third person, as if they're not going to read it? Those are all attempts to disparage someone without actually addressing their points.
So here it is: why do you feel entitled to have a man pay for you, as an implied, preset condition for you going out with him? And if you don't, then why are you criticizing me in an indirect way for combating that perspective?
Look, if the guy "invites" the girl on a date, then he is the host and he is taking her out, and then he should pay.
You think the bill should always be split? What if he makes more money than she does and he picks a fancy restaurant that she really cannot afford? And then doesn't inform her that they will be going dutch? Nope. Sorry.
When I invite people out to lunch, especially people that don't have a lot of money, I usually try to make some kind of comment revealing that I am going to pay. Then they are not stressed out about the money part.
I haven't dated in a while, but if I guy asked me out, chose the location w/out asking my input, and then expected me to pay I'd be annoyed to say the least. I'd pay but it would just be awkward. He asked me out, he should offer to pay the bill, or mention up front that we'll be going dutch. Offering to split is nice on the lady's part, and if the guy would like to split future meals, he'd be wise to accept. if he declined, he shouldn't expect her to constantly offer to split the bill.
I would never go out on a date without, at a minimum, insisting on paying for the tip, regardless of who did the asking. Splitting the bill is just better in the long run. But when it comes to what is proper, whoever did the asking should pay, or mention up front they will be splitting.
But certainly, you DON'T pay for dinner, then ask the girl out for drinks, and then tell her you don't have any money left!!!!!! Give me a break!
Of course you think so. You believe you deserve to be paid for your time, and yet you refuse to see how that is tantamount to being a paid escort.
As for the "invite" argument: You know full well that men most often do the asking. Therefore, given your reasoning, you've automatically locked him into a pay to play scenario. If you're to date him, he must have asked, because he's more likely to ask you, than you him. Consequently, he must pay, or he is {insert whatever pejorative term fits your fancy and vocabulary.}
And now you'll reply with a whole lotta "I ask men all the time. Blah, blah, blah...." because there's no way I can present proof otherwise. But it doesn't matter, for both your premise and conclusion is that someone who doesn't pay is "skeevy."
And you refuse to see that no matter who the does the inviting, that person is the host. Yes. You are being skeevy. And yep...that usually is the man. If you don't want to pay for dinner, then don't invite the gal to a dinner in the first place. Good luck with that.
Personally, I hate being asked out to dinner because I'd rather do most anything on a date than eat. But I know I'm in the minority on that.
the guy pays. tradition. but dont let her pick. i have had attempts to steer to maxins on the 1st date. also
dont let her drink up the bar. been there done that. its a nice date not asset download time.
I think the better question would be "How's it working for you on SECOND dates?" lol....
Look, if the guy "invites" the girl on a date, then he is the host and he is taking her out, and then he should pay.
Which would be fine, if women asked men out with the same frequency. Since they don't, there is no equity there.
Besides, a smart man doesn't ask a woman out for dinner before attraction is established. Coffee? Sure. Hiking? Maybe. Dinner? That's for guys who can't attract without tacitly promising her a "lifestyle improvement."
Quote:
You think the bill should always be split? What if he makes more money than she does and he picks a fancy restaurant that she really cannot afford? And then doesn't inform her that they will be going dutch? Nope. Sorry.
Well, in that case, the guy's an idiot. He can pound sand, for all I care. Why would you take a girl, you're not even sure is into you to a fancy dinner? That's supplication to the extreme.
Quote:
When I invite people out to lunch, especially people that don't have a lot of money, I usually try to make some kind of comment revealing that I am going to pay. Then they are not stressed out about the money part.
Great. But are you obligated to do so? If so, then you get no credit for your gregariousness. See the difference? If it's expected, then it's not a gift, it's an obligation.
No one is obligated to pay somebody else's way in an equal relationship. Will they pay for each other as a favor, or to show love? Sure. But the minute one is obligated, it's no longer about relationship reciprocity.
Quote:
I would never go out on a date without, at a minimum, insisting on paying for the tip, regardless of who did the asking. Splitting the bill is just better in the long run. But when it comes to what is proper, whoever did the asking should pay, or mention up front they will be splitting.
Sure. That's why you decided to do battle with me today: because we agree on the Dutch model. Not buyin' it.
And you refuse to see that no matter who the does the inviting, that person is the host. Yes. You are being skeevy. And yep...that usually is the man. If you don't want to pay for dinner, then don't invite the gal to a dinner in the first place. Good luck with that.
The beauty of it is, mommie, that luck has nothing to do with it. And yes, success...I have it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
