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.
Technically they are adults, in that they can vote, etc. But in reality they are not full adults because they are usually being supported by their parents (to some degree).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiiancoconut
So, adult men making a good income should wine and dine a women.
He's free to do whatever he likes. However, if he's serious about dating most women, he "should" seriously consider paying for at least the first few dates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiiancoconut
But a broke "adult" man has no business dating if he cant pay for your meal too.
Yes. Plus, being broke is not a good indicator of a stable person--which would make him undesirable as a dating partner.
So, adult men making a good income should wine and dine a women. But a broke "adult" man has no business dating if he cant pay for your meal too. OK, gotcha.
Obviously there is a different standard for someone in college than someone who is 35 with a full time job.
The point is if a guy is unemployed and/or so broke he can hardly pay his bills, then he needs to get a job and get his financial situation sorted out as a priority over dating. I dated a few guys who were unemployed for whatever reason and none of them worked out, but not because they couldn't afford to wine and dine me. It was because they weren't in a good point in their lives to start a relationship.
I don't need a guy to pay for my dinner. I have a job and I can afford my own dinner. But I think most women who work want a guy who is at least on the same level as them. I don't want to deal with someone else's financial problems honestly.
A guy who never makes any gestures that indicate romantic interest (flowers, a small gift, offering to pay once, or bringing a picnic lunch) will be assumed to have no romantic interest. He'll be friend-zoned. If the woman loses interest and moves on, and he's bitterly disappointed, he only has himself to blame. He has to signal the nature of his interest in some way. Splitting the bill is fine, but he has to come up with some clear sign to indicate what he sees the purpose of the "hanging out" to be.
This is my thinking as well. It could be generational, too.
Over the years I have had many male friends. They didnt pay for me but happily paid for their dates. Many were cheap guys too but this was the norm.
I have never had a guy not pay for me and want to go out again.
FWIW - I am a cheap date and always offer to leave the tip, if not pay my half.
After say the second or third date I freely pay, whether or not his interest is clear. I am big on homecooking anyway and often want my love interest to come over for meals versus going out to eat. I gladly pay for all groceries and beer, etc.
If this works for the OP though, not treating, then goody for him. If he has trouble getting women to stay interested maybe try a different tactic.
PS: Right or wrong, the practice of the man paying often signifies something and he gets the short end of the financial stick. I acknowledge that it isn't fair.
If you're dating a guy who makes just as much if not more than you, but every time you go out to dinner or lunch, he always has it split, does this say that he doesn't intend to be your bf? .
Do all of your dates ONLY consist of going to dinner or lunch? Do you go to events, movies, museums, baseball games, etc. that have a cost? Who pays?
I agree. If he never offered to pay for me, I would think he wasn't into me. Any guy who thinks you're something special would know that other guys would be happy to treat you, so he wouldn't want to risk losing you over something like that.
Could he assume the same about you if you never offered to pay for him? Note that the OP isn't offering, either. For all we know, he could assume that she's not into him.
Do you see women and men as alike? In other words, what I'm trying to ask is, do you treat women and men the identical same way, and you expect to be treated the same by a man or a woman? If in romance you view women as you do men (in other words, let's measure out everything by equal parts - you do this for me, and then I'll do that, or else nothing), isn't that the same as viewing women as you do men friends?
Maybe I'm confused, but how do you view women as different from your male friends? Or do you?
Right now, I get the idea that men who have that she's-after-my-bank-balance issue, want to be treated by women as they are treated by their man friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind31
Could he assume the same about you if you never offered to pay for him? Note that the OP isn't offering, either. For all we know, he could assume that she's not into him.
I didn't know either, but your response made me smile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia
That poster is a man.
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.
I didn't know either, but your response made me smile. 