Or is it different these days to have both split?
--Michael D. Clarke
Yes, isn't that 'feminism'? 🤔
Of course the 'feminist' justification is that men get paid more than women, but if men are expected to foot the bill during dates, that's precisely *why* some men are so keen to maintain the patriarchy (and higher salaries). No-one wants to lose out.
The Man should pay on dates.
shareI have always paid my own way on a first date. After that it depends on the situation.
shareWhomever has more money.
shareI've been on the pointy end and the blunt end of this situation. It kinda has to do with who set it up. I've always paid, mostly, only cause I don't get out much. But just like any of these asinine questions, it's totally base by base basis. But cmon, fork out you'll get forked.
share "who set it up"; "pointy end and the blunt end..."; "fork out you'll get forked."
Damn can I ever relate to these comments. I was once in a relationship where my girlfriend announced she wanted to take me out to eat at a buffet during a weekend outing. When the time came, I realized I wasn't hungry enough for a buffet. I suggested a popular mom & pop restaurant with a simpler menu she was unfamiliar with instead. I led the way, paid for my meal and let her do the same. She seemed to love it since this was during a beautiful spring evening, we ate on an outdoor terrace and the food was great. But damn did she ever let me have it with both barrels when we got home later. She claimed to have been humiliated. I saw it as having saved her some money. It was like a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" type of situation. 🙄
A lot of people endvup in relationships where the partner seems to always be testing them. Where you can never win. That ahit scares me. I'd rather die alone than play games the rest of my life. Don't settle. Find the best/worst person who suits you. I reckon.
shareDating is brutal these days especially online with all the ghosting shit. The worse is when they ghost and then come back weeks/months later. lol
--M.D.C.
It's not just these days. One of the most honest and astute observations I will give controversial Judge Judy credit for is her comment in one case where she said that girls learn at a very young age of their manipulative powers over the opposite sex. Why else would we have expressions such as " femme fatale" and "a woman's wiles"?
shareIn the past yes, now days a lot of men care for those games and avoid women altogether.
shareWell, she was definitely a head game player from the very beginning, manipulating me into a relationship via prick teasing me, if you know what I mean. But we were always diametrically opposed from that beginning when it came to handling money. She had thousands of $ in credit card debt while I was frugal with a healthy bank account.
shareThe women I go out with (mostly women in their 20's) would be grateful if I paid for the meal but whenever I've asked what they wanted to do, they have always wanted to split the bill.
shareMy father raised me that men hold doors open for women, men pull chairs out for women, men stand when a woman enters the room, men help women on with their coats, men do not swear in front of women, men walk on the outside when walking along the street, and men pay the bill on dates.
share^this^
shareExactly!!
shareYou get a standing ovation for this comment. The man you describe here is becoming extinct.
Walking on the outside by a street is a not as well known act of chivalry. Anytime I watch a movie or TV show and see a woman walking on the street side of a sidewalk I cringe.
As far as who pays for dates, if he asks, he pays.
While I appreciate that, as a female, I don't want to feel an obligation to anyone for paying me. Unfortunately it's the case. If someone buys you a drink in a bar, there has always been an expectation of attention. If it's a first date, I learned early on to pay my own way.
shareThis is why so many young people these days are just meeting for coffee, both men and women want to avoid the question of who pays for an expensive restaurant meeting. Men are don't want to have to pay for everything, and a hell of a lot of young women don't want to deal with a guy who thinks that because he paid for something he's "owed" sex.
A very rare display of rationality, in heterosexual mating behavior.
I find it hard to believe that's a big thing, ie "because he paid for something he's owed something".
Paying "buys" you the chance or time to hit on the girl, not a sex for money exchange.
"Paying "buys" you the chance or time to hit on the girl"
That's it, exactly!
Your date may not have the same idea of how much "hitting on" she is comfortable with, some of these gals who just want to meet for coffee may want to reserve the right just say "NicemeetingyouBYE!" with no reslting drama. You think that if you pay you've bought time in which to beg or do whatever you think is reasonable "hitting on", but what the young women seem to want out of the whole "coffee or split the bill" thing, is the right to put a stop to things on their *own* terms.
NO man should pay on the expectation of anything, whether it be sex or even a second date. That's misogynist/incel type behaviour, and NO woman has any obligation to reciprocate such a gesture with any more of her time, let alone anything further.
But I suppose what Corbell is saying is that if a man is generous with his money, it does often make him more attractive, not simply to 'gold-diggers' but to women who like a chivalrous and attentive man, and so it makes the possibility of a second date more likely, NOT because of expectation/obligation (NO man should want a woman to feel *obliged* to date him), but because the woman in question *wants* to see him again, because she likes what she sees.
Of course, neither party should be bullshitting and lying. Both parties should be as transparent and honest with each other as possible, but that's not always the reality when it comes to first dates. There's a certain game-playing involved, which isn't ideal, but pretty much de rigueur.
If the chick doesn't want to even let you have the attention for a chance, then why is she wasting your time, let alone your money?
It is certainly wrong for a man to "expect" some "play for pay", but it is equally wronng for a woman to string a guy along, like he is a wallet with feet, if there is zero possibility of the date advancing to something.
If you don't want your time wasted in the Dating Game, take "no" for an answer at the first opportunity, and get on with meeting someone more promising! Seriously, straight men should tell each other this, instead of "Keep trying" or "No means yes".
And yeah, it is wrong to string someone along because they're paying for the drinks, so never offer to pay for all the drinks or let anyone assume you will. Be proactive! Be the one to suggest splitting the check at a reasonably priced place, or just meeting for coffee!
1. If a man asks for a date or to buy a drink, he is making his intention clear. At that point the ball is in the woman's court. She is control saying yes or no. Saying yes to the meal or the drink is not a "no".
2. I like that you agree that the behavior, "stringing them along", is wrong, but you immediately turn it around and put the onus AGAIN, on the man. YEs, I remember being in that role. Thanks for piling even more on us straight men. And to be clear, by "thanks" I mean how about let's NOT do that for once?
Honey, the onus is being put on straight men, because straight men like you are being resistant to the idea of being thoughtful about the dating process, and giving their dates the courtesy of some input into the terms of conditions of dates. Which is odd, because supposedly you're dating a person because you like them at least a little and ought to have some desire to make them happy, but you're angry and feeling threatened.
Logically, having a discussion about dating where women have input should be welcome to straight men, as finding out what women actually like raises a man's chances of getting laid, right? Right. Think logically, not emotionally.
By the act of asking for a date or offering a drink, the men are accepting that they will be judged by the woman as acceptable or not acceptable for a relationship.
In that context for you to talk about putting "onus" on straight men for supposedly "resisting" being "thoughful" or allowing the woman "input",
is not reasonable.
My previous points stand. We are not talking about "nos" and it is not reasonable to put the onus for "stringing along" on men, instead of the women doing it.
If all you want to talk about is "stringing along", then let us define it. Every sensible person thinks that it is: Continuing to date after you have made up your mind not to fuck, or do anything for your date. It is NOT: Your date taking their own sweet time to make up their mind whether or not to fuck! That is, to be precise: *Normal dating*. If the other party has made up their own mind and is tired of waiting, they have the right to bugger off, because pressing for an answer while the other party is still thinking always gets a "no".
Seriously, you're missing the bigger picture here. Scads of younger women have decided that maybe they don't like your style of dating, with its terms and conditions tacitly attached to any monies spent, and want to talk about what they would like. This is a chance for any straight man with sense to learn what it really takes to get into women's pants.
Look what you did there. You defined the issue and then IMMEDIATELY, instead of giving me a chance to comment, or asking me any question,
you then pivoted AWAY from the issue, assuming that the woman is NOT doing that, and instead that the man, or actually, you personalized it, to accuse ME of the poor behavior, and then instead discussed your assumption of my bad behavior and then AGAIN put the onus on the men, for something that the woman/women did.
What we have here is a breakdown of healthy courtship structures. Men and women are being taught incorrect and conflicting narratives about how to be adults and the result is fewer people being able to succeed and find good life partners and form families.
It is a real problem, with a serious reduction in quality of life for both men AND women, and we can't even discuss it, becuase any attempt to put ANY responsibility for it on women at all, gets a knee jerk resistance from people like you, that to me, looks an awful lot like anti-man bigotry.
Define "healthy courtship structures", if you don't object to definitions in general.
IN this context, I what I would want is for young men to be told correect information about how their attempts will/should be done and will and should be judged,
AND for the young women to be on the same page, ie understanding what is being done, communicated by that, and to have some idea of how and why they should be judging those men.
Specifically in this example young men should be taught that paying is part of htem being judged on the amount of money they make, ie demonstating that they can provide,
while the young women should be taught that accepting said offerings should be done in good faith and what the purpose of the ritual is. (as above)
If any young men ever take advice from you, be absolutely sure to tell them that these days young women will judge them on their behavior far more than their "ability to provide"! Sure, times are tough and nobody wants someone who can't earn a living, not if they're male or female or gay or straight. But today's young women are all earning their own livings, and some are deliberately rejecting the spend/be-spent-on dynamic, and even if they're okay with letting him pay, and someone who can buy her own drinks won't forgive much because a guy spends money. Sorry, dude, that cushion is being taken away.
Oh well, I think we're both old and out of that game anyway, and it's pretty silly of us to be discussing what young people do when we don't. Which is why it seems so odd that you're addressing these issues with so much anger, and a powerful aversion to looking at men's behavior.
1. So they say. Yet women still want men who make more than them. So, a disconnect between what young people are being taught and reality. Which is very hard on them, because they end up doing what they are taught is right, and getting fucked because of it. That's not right.
2. LOL. You are the one discussing women's behavior and putting the onus on men to fix it.
1: It's not that women don't care about men's earning capacity, it's just that most women don't put the $$$ at the top of the list of things they're looking for in a man... but it's probably in the top five. Any individual woman may have that at #1, or may put it as a slightly lower priority than compatible interests, not being an asshole, sense of humor, or sex appeal, whatever her personal priorities are.
2: Because you think men are above criticism. Not in my book, baby! Want me to get personal?
1. Except that assholes often get the women. So, what you just said, was wrong.
2. What have I said that, to you, indicates that I think men are above criticism?
3. What happened that you WANT to get personal? Becuase I pointed out your actions in this thread?
1: Funny how the men who say "Assholes always get the women" are assholes, who have not gotten the women.
2: Every time you bitch about "putting the onus on men", you are stating that you believe me to be above criticism, at least in this issue.
3: Just to prove the point that men are not, in fact, above criticism - generally or individually. Which is why I politely offered to be an asshole, instead of just being an asshole.
Look, if you want to call this off, I'm fine with that. We're two old folks commenting on the young, the "GET OFF MY LAWN" conversation is probably coming up.
1. Not been my experiance or observation on either count.
2. Disagreeing with a specific criticism of men as a group does not imply that I am against ALL CRITICISM for men, or the idea of criticizing men.
3. IMO, the social scene is broken, leading to fewer successful families and thus lower quality of life for both men and women. Discussing the reasons for that, to find out why, makes sense to me.
Okay, if by "the social scene is broken" you mean "the social scene isn't the way I wish it was", or "I refuse to adapt to social change" or "Realty is clasing with my unrealistic expectations", which is what most people mean when they make sweeping pronouncements about Kids Today, then to hell with this conversation.
But before I decide whether to stop responding, I simply MUST warn you not to say "Assholes always get the women" to anyone but an Incel. FYI when sane people hear that, they think you're an Incel, or that your definition of "asshole" is "Any human male who has a girlfriend when I don't", or "We'll he's an asshole and doesn't have a girlfriend, and he has no idea he's just disproven his own hypothesis, and is therefore incapable of logical thinking". So don't say that to anyone but an Incel, not if you want to be taken seriously.
Pretty much everything you said about what I "meant" is wrong.
And as to what "sane people" assume when they hear me say that, that might be, but the reality is that fewer and fewer people are getting married, or even having sex, and that this is really hurting the quality of life of both men and women.
If you think marriage always enhances people's quality of life, you are VERY naive.
I said nothing like that.
The reality remains the same. A decline in marriage is causing serious decline in quality of life for men and women.
I assume that you don't WANT for men and women to both have decreased quality of life. Is that correct?
If you don't like being misunderstood, work on expressing your ideas more coherently.
And again, marriage does NOT necessarily mean an improved quality of life for anyone. Okay, maybe you think it'd improve YOUR quality of life, but for marriage to be considered beneficial to everyone... it'd also have to improve your wife's quality of life.
1. I stated my position fine. Everyone knows that a statement about trends effecting scores of millions of poeple, is a general statement. I will not insult your intelligence by including some type of boiler plate with each post.
2. I wil ask. Are you aware of the decline in happiness for men and women? Do you WANT to fight it? Or is there other goals more important than that to you?
If there's a decline in happiness for men and women, living wages and universal healthcare would do a hell of a lot more to fix it than more marriages.
Because in case you hadn't noticed, a great many marriages are sources of unhappiness to the people involved. Even long-term marriages.
And with that, I think I'm done. It's been a slice.
Amen brother! Wow isn't Corbell the worst kind of moron imaginable? You are right on the money about healthcare and a livable wage.
shareAs far as I know, Corbell is not the worst kind of moron imaginable, not according to what I've seen, and the extremely fierce competition among Moviechat's high-level idiots.
But yeah, if you want to see people in general happier, take the fear of economic disaster and the worst agonies of poverty out of their lives. Or at least, greatly reduce them, as my suggestions would. Because it's only when people have a little breathing room, that they can really start thinking about love and being genuinely happy.
So I’m specifically not talking about intercourse, but do you think it is OK for a woman to keep going on dates with a guy that she has no interest in giving the slightest amount of affection to? I’m talking about innocent kisses and touching.
shareOtto was pretty clear. In his world, even behavior of thee woman he AGREES is bad, the onus for fixing it, is on the man.
Agreed Otter.
I think a lot of us guys feel obliged to pay as a courtesy and because we were raised that way, but it does risk getting into some thorny areas regarding expectations and 'transactions'. I don't want a woman to think I'm paying for her meal/drinks on the expectation of sex, but I also don't want her to think I'm a cheapskate who doesn't know social etiquette.
I just don't believe that. I just don't believe that many men think that the cost of a movie and a meal and/or a couple of drinks, is the price of sex, in a straight pay for play transaction.
I can't believe how naïve so many are. I learned this in my mid twenties with certainty, that it makes no difference for a man how much he's Woo's a woman thinking it may get him somewhere with her. If a woman wants a man, she'll just want him regardless of whether he's fiscal or not. Women want us men to believe they're propaganda if they go on stating or insinuating a man should have to do this or that to qualify with her. Those one's are manipulative losers.
share‘who thinks that because he paid for something he's "owed" sex’
I would hope I don’t know any guy who thinks because he paid for dinner he is owed sex from a woman.” Anyone who thinks that way is a pathetic scum bag.
I've met more than a few. Also men at the club who think that because they buy you a drink they have a claim on you for the rest of the night. Like I've said in earlier comments, if it's a first date, or I don't know you, I'm paying my own way thanks. I mean I'm still mostly dating Gen Xers when I do date, but yeah, the expectation still seems to be there.
shareSo, during your dating life, when did you encounter guys like this most often and would you classify them as scum bags or creeps? I wonder if guys commonly don’t tell other guys that they might think that way. It just seems disgusting.
I mean maybe I just dated the wrong guys? I think I did encounter it more at clubs than when paying for dinner, and thinking about dinner dates, in my experience, hockey players were the worst.
shareIt must be more common than I realized. I'm sure guys who behave that way don't really go around bragging about it to people who would think expecting something like that is completely wrong.
share