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 know that the person who invited (99.9% of the time it's the guy) should pay for the date, but what happens in this situation. Guy suggests place X for the first date which is a cheaper but still decent sports bar... girl says let's do Y instead which happens to be an expensive restaurant. Does this mean that now it's reasonable that the check be split instead?
I think in this case the guy is off the hook to pay the entire thing as some responsibility for the increased cost goes to the girl as well. Agree or not?
But who are all these guys who agree to a dinner date for the first date? Or even in the first few dates? Why do so many guys do that? And how do these women find all the sucker guys? This mystifies me.
I've been on tons of dinner dates as the first date so I don't find them unusual at all, nor do I think of my date as a "sucker" for wanting to share a meal with me. I find your point of view quite mystifying, Ruth4Truth.
I feel compelled to speak up in favor of the good old-fashioned dinner date. Here's why I love them:
Reason 1: Everyone has to eat, so why not eat together? A meal shared with another person is more enjoyable than eating alone (for me, anyway).
Reason 2: The ritual of sharing food is extremely symbolic. It allows an opportunity for the host to "provide" for his/her guest. A hike isn't going to make a date feel cared for. I think this is an important consideration when finding a mate and it's a trait that you want to demonstrate to your date.
Reason 3: You can tell a lot about a person by where they want to take you to eat, what they order, their table manners, how they treat the wait staff, how well they tip, etc.
Reason 4: Dates without food always feel like something is missing. Activity dates don't even feel like real dates to me, unless we grab something to eat beforehand or afterwards.
Reason 5: It's easy, and first dates should be easy.
Last edited by Butterflyfish; 05-13-2015 at 10:27 PM..
If the girl insists on going somewhere else, I wouldn't be surprised if she is expected to pay half the bill or for herself.
The rule of thumb for me when dating in the beginning is that the guy pays (sorry I like someone who pays, gets the door, walks me to my car, etc.) if he asks you out, picks the place, OR asks you where you would like to go.
I don't typically change plans on anyone (friends or dates), but I absolutely loathe coffee dates and also suggest getting a drink instead (really I typically just get 1 drink, or 2 if I'm having a really good time).
I know that the person who invited (99.9% of the time it's the guy) should pay for the date, but what happens in this situation. Guy suggests place X for the first date which is a cheaper but still decent sports bar... girl says let's do Y instead which happens to be an expensive restaurant. Does this mean that now it's reasonable that the check be split instead?
I think in this case the guy is off the hook to pay the entire thing as some responsibility for the increased cost goes to the girl as well. Agree or not?
I wouldn't suggest elsewhere, much more an expensive restaurant. If the place that the guy suggested is somewhere safe and convenient, it wouldn't be a problem for me even if it's cheap.
I've had first dates at sports bar. I lived in Colorado and there were a lot of fun ones. If she isn't into sports, then I could see her suggesting something else, but definitely NOT an expensive restaurant. If I was a guy I would be inclined to want to cancel the date after that.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,995,252 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
But who are all these guys who agree to a dinner date for the first date? Or even in the first few dates? Why do so many guys do that? And how do these women find all the sucker guys? This mystifies me.
Because many men have little choice it seems. The choice is to agree or go months more with no dates. So it seems.
I know that the person who invited (99.9% of the time it's the guy) should pay for the date, but what happens in this situation. Guy suggests place X for the first date which is a cheaper but still decent sports bar... girl says let's do Y instead which happens to be an expensive restaurant. Does this mean that now it's reasonable that the check be split instead?
I think in this case the guy is off the hook to pay the entire thing as some responsibility for the increased cost goes to the girl as well. Agree or not?
These topics re-appear again and again. Here's the deal - each party pays what he/she orders in any case. If some restaurant is exceedingly expensive that other party doesn't know about, one who planned to go there (regardless if you invited someone from the get-go or re-arranged), it is polite to pay for both.
These stories where a guy is supposed to pay on dates are ridiculous. Is a woman supposed to play courting game, is she a virginal maiden, is she capable to do any paid job?
This is a ridiculous practice indeed. I realize that it might have had more sense in USA some 100 years ago when teenage children supported their elderly parents, but this story took a full reversal - there are planty of parents in their 50s and 60s who support their kids while young adults continue to be dependent and educate themselves on their parents expense long past the 20-year mark. If someone insists that a man should pay for a date, he is either an idiot or masochist. This is like saying that most guys should avoid dating until they are 25+ years of age - because most guys will basically have their parents pay for their studies or they'll depend on their parents in some other way. Is it okay for parents to pay for both children? Does the girlfriend have her own parents? Should the parents also cover promotion and graduation expenses of random women whom their sons will meet?
Please, be reasonable and you'll have a lot better time dating in America. Women and girls in America date whomever strikes their fancy and they have sex with whomever they want. They won't pull some ancient custom out of their pockets when they meet such guy, someone who "gives her attention that she wants". Women who will not date you if you don't pay for both are known as sponsor-seekers, a.k.a. gold-diggers. Make no mistake, though - these same gold-diggers and "sponsor-seekers" will still have sex and date boyfriends who don't do that on the side - while seeking for an idiot who lives in an ancient concept of who should do what. Try telling a woman that you're a man and that a man decides what to do and then order her to go home. Tell me how well does that go.
By the way, I've been in Sweden for business obligations and unlike what this forum perpetuates about Swedes (Swedish men in particular), they know what they want and they know how to handle this BS. They won't be crying over online forums that they need to pay dates (or are hinted to do so) for a woman who acts like b**ch, woman who's been sleeping with other men and now expects a man to follow some Victorian norm, they won't whine that woman has a job of her own and is able-bodied to be employed just like they are - they won't feel any obligation towards a woman because of gender difference and they know that a woman is the same like they are, a human being, or more precisely said: an ADULT human being. I had to emphasize this word in particular because so many Americans seem to be stuck in Medieval norms when women were not only practically but also legally seen as perpetual children.
WTH is wrong with a sports bar/restaurant? I wouldn't want to go out with a guy if he suggested a very intimate romantic restaurant for a first date. I would rather go to a sports bar that has a fun atmosphere then some over priced stuffy restaurant that's pretentious.
I'll tell you this - I frequently call other people to go out together. They generally don't expect me to pay for it, even though I earn much more than they do. Sometimes I feel obliged to cover extra expense, but I also don't want to insult them by paying and not allowing them to pay. I'd also feel they're being jerks if they reasoned the way that I'm obliged to pay each time. Eventually, I'd probably be reluctant to call people who expect me to pay all the time, even though I don't have monetary issues in my personal life.
This is exactly what happens with men who accept the ancient role that's so out of touch with reality of modern dating - they are far less courageous to date or even approach than men who don't have such mental obstacle. This is especially true with casual dating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
Because many men have little choice it seems. The choice is to agree or go months more with no dates. So it seems.
I don't agree with this. It's usual to see a few "ladies' men" being served drinks together with the ladies in clubs. Who pays for it? Chumps who usually take a few shots to get the courage to give it a try. The same chumps who have a mental obstacle which says that a woman is a fragile plant and that she's incapable to pay her own way, or that it's impolite of him to expect it or allow it to happen. Well, not only that it rarely results with a date, but the fact is that a woman WON'T outright date any guy because he pays for both.
It's true that plenty of "initially indifferent" women may go on a few extra dates with a guy because he pays for both, a fraction women might even wish to be in "long-term" relationship with a guy who's capable to be a "sponsor" and they might even prefer guys who cover all or most of the bills because it's a good litmus test of his "sponsorship abilities". I can tell you this - woman won't ditch a guy she's interested in because she had to pay for what she ordered. There are lots of guys who automatically pay because they think that a woman is interested and that she won't call him because he didn't pay for both.... well, "she's not that into you", plain and simple. It's incredible to know that lots of women think the same way - that a guy will not wish to date her anymore because she paid or offered to pay what she ordered.
So many folks are only concerned about a way to re-brand this rotten "rule" of dating by saying something like "whoever invites you is the one who pays". You basically get the same thing because women feel the need to get a guy to finally utter it and guys feel the need to be the ones who invite on dates. Ditch this BS concept, it only hampers most guys to date and helps players - it doesn't help women to date either, since only gold-diggers and sponsor-seekers are the ones who can "screen" for their target audience with better efficiency.
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.
