Real Men Pay

[MadImmortalMan]

I was following a discussion about who pays when people go on a date. One woman was quite insistent that the man should always pay. Period. Now this lady is a feminist, or says she is. And fairly smart from what I can tell. Her point boiled down to this: The man is showing respect to the woman by offering to use his money to attract her, and the woman is showing trust by allowing him to do this.

Now this may be an attempt to rationalize why she holds this position so she can keep making dudes buy her free meals, and we all know smarter people have higher capability to rationalize.

But, that aside, giving her the benefit of the doubt, how does letting somebody buy you stuff demonstrate trust? Guy or girl, either way.

If you are of the opinion that the man should always pay, is this why, or is there another reason?

Oh, and to pre-emptively derail into a gay thread: On a gay date, the lawyer pays.

[garbon]

She's rationalizing. What trust could there be in having someone pay for dinner for you? Trust they won't reach down your throat and try to take the meal back?

[Admiral Yi]

On a first date I think the man should offer to pay, the women should offer to pay half, and the man should insist on paying all.

On subsequent dates the inviter should pay, whether it's the man or the woman.

[CountDeMoney]

I have no problem paying 100% for dates, but I have very specific and finite date-paying-to-scoring-ass CBA models with extremely rigid deadlines that need to be met.

[derspiess]

On a first date I think the man should offer to pay, the women should offer to pay half, and the man should insist on paying all.

That is proper etiquette for both sides.

On subsequent dates the inviter should pay, whether it's the man or the woman.

A bit too soon, but then again I like the Seedy approach.

And needless to say, MEN DRIVE

[Ed Anger]

I expected to be in poundtown fairly soon.

[merithyn]

I don't understand how this is even still a discussion. Whoever invites, pays. It's not that hard.

And the chick is totally rationalizing to get free food.

[Razgovory]

She's rationalizing. What trust could there be in having someone pay for dinner for you? Trust they won't reach down your throat and try to take the meal back?

Fear of poison?

[garbon]

She's rationalizing. What trust could there be in having someone pay for dinner for you? Trust they won't reach down your throat and try to take the meal back?

Fear of poison?

They aren't cooking the food.

[merithyn]

She's rationalizing. What trust could there be in having someone pay for dinner for you? Trust they won't reach down your throat and try to take the meal back?

The only thing that I can come up with for this is trusting that the guy won't assume he's getting laid just because he paid for dinner. But that's one hell of a reach, from my perspective.

[garbon]

She's rationalizing. What trust could there be in having someone pay for dinner for you? Trust they won't reach down your throat and try to take the meal back?

The only thing that I can come up with for this is trusting that the guy won't assume he's getting laid just because he paid for dinner. But that's one hell of a reach, from my perspective.

If anything I see that as sign that he expects to get laid if he pays.

[Josquius]

My view is that its BS old fashioned sexism that happens to be in the woman's favour (it wasn't all entirely one sided...).
Back in the day it made sense. Men were the ones who went out to work and made lives for themselves whilst women were home-making baby poping machines. Ergo men had the money ergo men should pay.
These days however men and women are equal and both are just as capable of getting jobs and earning money of their own so...makes no sense the man should pay.

A gay friend insists I'm in the wrong on this. He says that since I'm the one who is expecting to shag a girl rather than be the shagee it is therefore my obligation to pay- if he was dating a guy and expecting to bottom then he would want to be paid for but if he was expecting to top then he would pay. How true this is amongst gays in general or if its just him being weird I don't know. Queerguish?

That trust thing is nonsense.
Unless the man is showing trust that the woman isn't a gold digger just out for the free meal?...except men have to pay so even if she is a gold digger he's not putting in any special trust, its just what he is forced to do....
The only logical way buying a meal/drink for someone shows trust IMO is if you're doing 'rounds'- I'll pay for this one because I trust you won't welch out of paying for the next.

Glad I don't date.

[garbon]

A gay friend insists I'm in the wrong on this. He says that since I'm the one who is expecting to shag a girl rather than be the shagee it is therefore my obligation to pay- if he was dating a guy and expecting to bottom then he would want to be paid for but if he was expecting to top then he would pay. How true this is amongst gays in general or if its just him being weird I don't know. Queerguish?

He seems to be confusing going on a date with prostitution.

[Caliga]

Now this lady is a feminist, or says she is.

I disagree with her.

[Razgovory]

She's rationalizing. What trust could there be in having someone pay for dinner for you? Trust they won't reach down your throat and try to take the meal back?

Fear of poison?

They aren't cooking the food.

Fuck if I know, neither of us date many women so we are both sort of out of our element.