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.
Boring! Besides, it sounds like you're condescending to JJ. Your Socratic method would more appropriately be used on the people who insist on paying for women, not on women who pretty much agree with your position.
Boring is in the mind of the beholder.
The point of discussing it was to bring the issues to light. I actually think that JetJockey is a perfect person to discuss it with. Despite my earlier gaffe, I think she's one of the more rational posters in this forum. So discussing with her would lead to a more direct discussion without having to bring it back in to focus all of the time.
It has never even occurred to me to pay on a date. For me this has nothing to do with self reliance, independence, or perceived obligation issues discussed here.
I've talked to many men that have said if a woman splits the check, she's not interested in him and he won't ask her out again.
That's just stupid of them. So they won't ask her out again even if she shows all sorts of signs that she's really into him but simply pays her way? I'd be ecstatic, even though I'm a believer in whoever extends the invite pays.
That's just stupid of them. So they won't ask her out again even if she shows all sorts of signs that she's really into him but simply pays her way? I'd be ecstatic, even though I'm a believer in whoever extends the invite pays.
Nope. My best guy friend maintains that if a woman pays on the first date or argues over the check she doesn't want to be 'in debt' to the guy and therefore isn't interested in seeing him again.
I know this has happened to me on two separate occasions, and possibly a few more that I'm not aware of. One of the guy was really confused, because I saw him a few weeks after our date and asked him why he didn't call...he said he thought I wasn't interested because I wanted to split the bill.
Nope. My best guy friend maintains that if a woman pays on the first date or argues over the check she doesn't want to be 'in debt' to the guy and therefore isn't interested in seeing him again.
I know this has happened to me on two separate occasions, and possibly a few more that I'm not aware of. One of the guy was really confused, because I saw him a few weeks after our date and asked him why he didn't call...he said he thought I wasn't interested because I wanted to split the bill.
Couple questions
What happened after that interaction, when he said he thought you weren't interested? Couldn't the spark have been rekindled at that point?
Did you not communicated during the date? You paid but did you hint at, or, gasp, even flat out state, that you'd like to see him again?
This goes back to my point about social mores that no one seems willing to touch.
The reason that mores exist is so that society can function without having to question a person's every action. We know what an action is supposed to mean.
However, since the conditions under which these (men paying, etc) mores were formed no longer exist, the more's themselves are breaking down. Thus, instead of simplifying our interactions, they are confusing them. The mores need to change.
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.
