first date and the bill...

[hoodedfalcon]

I have a funny feeling most of the "whoever asks, pays" crowd have either never or rarely asked someone out. Convenient. Entitled, but convenient.

I believe I was one of the "whoever asks, pays" commenters. I am a woman. I will pay if I ask someone out. In fact, I go out of my way to pay....If fella goes to the bathroom, etc. I will pay. Then there is no issue, no awkwardness. If a fella can't handle it, that will tell me what I need to know about that person. Does this make me entitled?

[SweetLife]

Well... it has been 6 or 7 years since I "actively dated" lol... however, I found that when I was asked out (online dating mostly) the man always paid... however, if I had no interest whatsoever in the person I would go to the waiter and slip him my half of the bill, plus a tip and let my "date" know after the fact that I had taken care of my part. If the man didn't pay and hadn't mentioned off the bat he wanted to go "dutch" this was a strike against him... leading inevitbly to no second chance...

It was a little sneaky but that way I didn't mind telling my date that "we didn't have enough in common".   The only time I let someone I wasn't interested in at all foot the bill was when he lied ENTIRELY about what he looked like old picture (of someone else likely) ... when I had always put up dated pictures on my profile ... the only reason I made him foot the bill was for being so very deceptive ... needless to say there was no second date ... I think I even skipped dessert and coffee!

[totoro]

I have a funny feeling most of the "whoever asks, pays" crowd have either never or rarely asked someone out. Convenient. Entitled, but convenient.

Or you have a different view of things because you have different points of reference.   

As I said, my view is whoever asks pays if it is a date.  Absolutely nothing to do with entitlement.  Much more to do with social convention and what I view as a marker of character.  Perhaps a generational or social group thing as I believe I am 12-15 years older than you, but it exists. 

As I stated previously, it has nothing to do with money or entitlement.  I am the high income earner in my relationship and I expect to fund more of our retirement.  I have no problem with this because once you commit you are together imo and the dating phase is not about saving a few bucks at a restaurant.  I don't need a free meal - ever.   I need to find someone compatible and if we are not expressing the same values this lessens the likelihood of a compatible relationship.

Prior to commitment there is the get to know you phase which I have certain criteria for which I am comfortable with.  Are they gendered?  Yes, I believe so.  But then I am a heterosexual woman who grew up in the 80s.  I'd have different reference points that a same-sex relationship might or a younger/older person might.  Am I okay with this?  Absolutely.  We are all products of our environment and I have examined my values and am absolutely comfortable with them.

The thing is Zikoris, you have to understand that while you might judge my perspective as entitled, I might view yours as cheap and disrespectful.  I don't believe you are this way, but stating that you would not go anywhere with anyone if you didn't each pay your own way is so individualistic as to be off-putting for those who enjoy taking care of others and get as much from treating someone as you might from accounting for each dollar.   

I actually like paying for a friend's movie.   

[LowER]

If you asked her out, pay the flipping' bill and consider the experience a great gift, even if it didn't go well.  Why?  Because each experience like that is one step toward what you want; think of each date as a TINY drop in the bucket toward divorce prophylaxis - I AM NOT KIDDING!  As Thomas Edison is credited with saying, "I have not failed, I found 10,000 ways that do not work."  It is MUCH better to figure that out now rather than divorce court later.  And MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH cheaper.

I am sorry about all the caps.

[Zikoris]

The thing is Zikoris, you have to understand that while you might judge my perspective as entitled, I might view yours as cheap and disrespectful.  I don't believe you are this way, but stating that you would not go anywhere with anyone if you didn't each pay your own way is so individualistic as to be off-putting for those who enjoy taking care of others and get as much from treating someone as you might from accounting for each dollar.   

I actually like paying for a friend's movie.   

And I have absolutely no problem with people who genuinely WANT to pay for someone else, enjoy treating them, etc. Sometimes I take friends/relatives out and pay for them, or take my boyfriend out on a special occasion.

My issue is with 1. Expecting someone to pay for you, especially someone you barely know (entitlement), and 2. Playing head games where you pretend to be willing to pay, but they have to read your mind and realize that it's an act (phoniness in general).

[totoro]

The thing is Zikoris, you have to understand that while you might judge my perspective as entitled, I might view yours as cheap and disrespectful.  I don't believe you are this way, but stating that you would not go anywhere with anyone if you didn't each pay your own way is so individualistic as to be off-putting for those who enjoy taking care of others and get as much from treating someone as you might from accounting for each dollar.   

I actually like paying for a friend's movie.   

And I have absolutely no problem with people who genuinely WANT to pay for someone else, enjoy treating them, etc. Sometimes I take friends/relatives out and pay for them, or take my boyfriend out on a special occasion.

My issue is with 1. Expecting someone to pay for you, especially someone you barely know (entitlement), and 2. Playing head games where you pretend to be willing to pay, but they have to read your mind and realize that it's an act (phoniness in general).

Except that is not what it is when it comes to dating for my generation.  When I was dating and looking for a long-term relationship I would not have gone on a second date with a man who asked me out and accepted my offer to pay half or all on the first date.  I, in fact, turned a number of men down because of this. I would have been relieved if a man accepted my offer to pay if I was not interested because who wants to feel obliged to anyone they don't like?

None of this is about entitlement for me.  It is about an expression of values and a willingness to take care of others.  This might not translate for you as your point of reference is different but I feel like you are unwilling to accept another perspective on the matter that is real and lived.

As odd and "entitled" (which is a disrespectful characterization imo) as this social convention may appear to you, the motives behind it are value-driven based on caring for others and not entitlement.  In fact, it may be viewed as an expression of the traditional gender division in which men were the breadwinners and the women dependent.  As odd and old-fashioned, and perhaps abhorrent to you as this might be, it exists and is real and is treated as an expression of good character and values by many, including myself even though I earn a lot of money. 

If I was a man I'd be on the other side of the equation and feel fine about that too.  Past the first date, I would expect that a woman would make efforts to show she cared and was interested, whatever form this took.  If we are committed I would expect that the "who should pay" would translate into "we're paying together".  This is not everyone's situation, but it works very well when you have the same reference points, values and beliefs.

At the end of the day life is not tit for tat.  It is about how compatible you are and whether you are rowing the boat in the same direction together imo.

[HappierAtHome]

I have a funny feeling most of the "whoever asks, pays" crowd have either never or rarely asked someone out. Convenient. Entitled, but convenient.

Wrong - I'm an "asker pays" person and I've done more than my fair share of asking :-)

[arebelspy]

I have a funny feeling most of the "whoever asks, pays" crowd have either never or rarely asked someone out. Convenient. Entitled, but convenient.

I disagree, and thing it's pretty rude of you to assume that.

[Gin1984]

The thing is Zikoris, you have to understand that while you might judge my perspective as entitled, I might view yours as cheap and disrespectful.  I don't believe you are this way, but stating that you would not go anywhere with anyone if you didn't each pay your own way is so individualistic as to be off-putting for those who enjoy taking care of others and get as much from treating someone as you might from accounting for each dollar.   

I actually like paying for a friend's movie.   

And I have absolutely no problem with people who genuinely WANT to pay for someone else, enjoy treating them, etc. Sometimes I take friends/relatives out and pay for them, or take my boyfriend out on a special occasion.

My issue is with 1. Expecting someone to pay for you, especially someone you barely know (entitlement), and 2. Playing head games where you pretend to be willing to pay, but they have to read your mind and realize that it's an act (phoniness in general).

I am willing to pay, but the willingness for someone to take me up on it says something about that person and based on that information, I would not continue to date them.  Most people know, you ask, you pay.  If you want to not go with the customs of the culture you are in, you risk having backlash.  Consequences for your action, ain't they grand?

[Zamboni]

The host or hostess (whichever party issued the invitation) pays for the first date.  Expecting anything else is extremely poor form that will get you expelled from the Zamboni school of etiquette.  If you cannot afford to pay for both parties at any particular location for hosting the date, then it behooves you to use good sense and choose a more frugal option. 

Double penalty for asking the other party to pay any portion of the bill for any of the following "reasons": the date went badly/the person ordered something expensive/the person doesn't look like his or her profile photos/I'm frugal and they need to know ASAP.

[Bakari]

I think the social norm of men doing the asking is a remnant of the one-sided nature of the feminist revolution.
Women have been given the freedom to "wear the pants" both literally and figuratively, be assertive, take "masculine" careers, etc.
But there was never any equivalent for men to be accepted "wearing the skirt" - again, both literally and figuratively.  Men are still expected to be manly, few people (of either gender) really respect a stay-at-home dad, men are always supposed to be assertive (if not dominant), most especially when it comes to romance.  Its not just paying for the date, its being the one to hold the door, being the one to bring flowers or offer a massage or plan the perfect evening, and of course being the one to both ask for the initial date and make the first moves toward physical intimacy.
Of course this isn't universal, and there are exceptions, but for the most part women expect this from their potential partners, and anything less just isn't attractive.  Unfortunately, (I believe), this reinforces some of the worst aspects of male female interaction, from cat calling to sexual assault, by teaching men they are supposed to be aggressive, that women like that.

I'm glad to see how many exceptions there are here.  Not that it particularly surprises me, it is the MMM forums after all. 

[HappierAtHome]

I think the social norm of men doing the asking is a remnant of the one-sided nature of the feminist revolution.
Women have been given the freedom to "wear the pants" both literally and figuratively, be assertive, take "masculine" careers, etc.
But there was never any equivalent for men to be accepted "wearing the skirt" - again, both literally and figuratively.  Men are still expected to be manly, few people (of either gender) really respect a stay-at-home dad, men are always supposed to be assertive (if not dominant), most especially when it comes to romance.  Its not just paying for the date, its being the one to hold the door, being the one to bring flowers or offer a massage or plan the perfect evening, and of course being the one to both ask for the initial date and make the first moves toward physical intimacy.
Of course this isn't universal, and there are exceptions, but for the most part women expect this from their potential partners, and anything less just isn't attractive.  Unfortunately, (I believe), this reinforces some of the worst aspects of male female interaction, from cat calling to sexual assault, by teaching men they are supposed to be aggressive, that women like that.

I'm glad to see how many exceptions there are here.  Not that it particularly surprises me, it is the MMM forums after all.

I love you, Bakari. You're so right about this. Women are slowly gaining the freedom to be loud, strong etc but men are yet to gain the freedom to be quiet, passive, sweet and lovely (if that's who they want to be!) instead of big strong caveman types.

[Celda]

The "social convention" argument is a non-starter - at that point, you might as well just admit that you have no actual argument. I'd expect Mustachians of all people to understand that - spending most of your income and keeping up with the Jones is a common social norm, after all.

As for the claim that most people who think that the asker should pay don't ask anyone out - that is a statement of fact, not an opinion. It is impossible to disagree with a statement of fact, it is only possible to disagree with opinions. Statements of fact can only be refuted, not disagreed with.

We know for a fact that most women do not ask anyone out on dates:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20123162/its-still-man-ask-woman-out-world

"In a recent Match.com survey of 5,000 single adults, only 10.8 percent of women admitted to asking a man out.".

We also know for a fact that that men (and not women) pay for dates:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-08/asa-seb080913.php

"most men (84 percent) and women (58 percent) reported that men pay for most expenses, even after dating for a while."

These two facts show that it is a statistical certainty that most women who claim that the asker should pay do not ask anyone out. Therefore, it seems clear that is simply based on entitlement, rather than any other reason.

As for "Consequences for your action, ain't they grand?", that is a rather short-sighted and illogical view.

Suppose you had a man who had no problem paying, but also was fine with it if his female date wanted to pay. He starts to pay, but when she offers to pay, he accepts.

Suddenly you have rejected a man, as a result of contradictory beliefs and actions, even though you had compatible views (both of you wanted the man, as the asker, to pay).

[NinetyFour]

Reading this thread makes me glad I don't date.

As sunnyca and ontario74 said in another thread, I believe I will remain single.  Now, if one of them should ever be in southwestern CO....

[totoro]

I think the social norm of men doing the asking is a remnant of the one-sided nature of the feminist revolution.
Women have been given the freedom to "wear the pants" both literally and figuratively, be assertive, take "masculine" careers, etc.
But there was never any equivalent for men to be accepted "wearing the skirt" - again, both literally and figuratively.  Men are still expected to be manly, few people (of either gender) really respect a stay-at-home dad, men are always supposed to be assertive (if not dominant), most especially when it comes to romance.  Its not just paying for the date, its being the one to hold the door, being the one to bring flowers or offer a massage or plan the perfect evening, and of course being the one to both ask for the initial date and make the first moves toward physical intimacy.
Of course this isn't universal, and there are exceptions, but for the most part women expect this from their potential partners, and anything less just isn't attractive.  Unfortunately, (I believe), this reinforces some of the worst aspects of male female interaction, from cat calling to sexual assault, by teaching men they are supposed to be aggressive, that women like that.

I'm glad to see how many exceptions there are here.  Not that it particularly surprises me, it is the MMM forums after all.

I don't know.

1. I respect stay-at-home moms and dads equally.  I hope one of my sons gets to be a stay-at-home dad - he would be well suited for it.  I'm not sure he will given how much of a privilege it is these days not to have both parents working.

2. I don't think having a career translates into being manly.  I never wanted to wear a skirt every day myself anyway but I certainly don't enjoy manly pursuits at all.  It is about the freedom to choose what matches your talents and inclinations in the work force.  Law and medicine are filled with women these days, but the trades are not.   

3. I do agree that some of the courting traditions are gendered.  I don't see that as a bad thing as a formality but it is in transition and has been for the last century.  People have different values and expectations as a result.  Good manners still count in my books and it usually takes nothing away from someone to show good manners.  Similar values are tested here and that is important for long-term.

4. I do not equate good manners in terms of door opening, bringing of flowers, or initiating a first kiss as reinforcing of crossing the line behaviours by either sex including catcalling, aggression or a search for a sugar daddy.  If you don't have good internal boundaries custom and tradition are not the problem.

5. I do agree that men get the short end of the stick with feminism - it has gone too far in relation to child custody and some of the expectations that are placed on men to earn a living for a family.  It is annoying to see how unequal things sometimes have worked out all in the name of equality.

6. I think planning the perfect evening goes both ways.  Who doesn't enjoy having someone special to plan something for?

7. Bringing flowers - never dated a man that wanted them.  People usually like to give gifts that they know others will enjoy.  I do believe the women I know give as many or more gifts as men when in a committed relationship. 

[Bakari]

While I suspect you are right, there is the possibility that a disproportionate amount of that rare 10% are on the Mustacian forums.  Actually, there probably is a disproportionate amount, though it could still be less than 50%, in which case your point would still be valid.

Just saying, a statistical certainty for the general population does not necessarily translate to a statistical certainty for any particular sub-group.

And ladies: please! prove us wrong!!  When (if) you next find yourself single, make a point to ask out at least as many people as you accept offers from. 
We are willing to make a more egalitarian society, but it won't work if half the population doesn't put in the work.

http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2014/02/wearing-skirt.html

[Gin1984]

The "social convention" argument is a non-starter - at that point, you might as well just admit that you have no actual argument. I'd expect Mustachians of all people to understand that - spending most of your income and keeping up with the Jones is a common social norm, after all.

As for the claim that most people who think that the asker should pay don't ask anyone out - that is a statement of fact, not an opinion. It is impossible to disagree with a statement of fact, it is only possible to disagree with opinions. Statements of fact can only be refuted, not disagreed with.

We know for a fact that most women do not ask anyone out on dates:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20123162/its-still-man-ask-woman-out-world

"In a recent Match.com survey of 5,000 single adults, only 10.8 percent of women admitted to asking a man out.".

We also know for a fact that that men (and not women) pay for dates:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-08/asa-seb080913.php

"most men (84 percent) and women (58 percent) reported that men pay for most expenses, even after dating for a while."

These two facts show that it is a statistical certainty that most women who claim that the asker should pay do not ask anyone out. Therefore, it seems clear that is simply based on entitlement, rather than any other reason.

As for "Consequences for your action, ain't they grand?", that is a rather short-sighted and illogical view.

Suppose you had a man who had no problem paying, but also was fine with it if his female date wanted to pay. He starts to pay, but when she offers to pay, he accepts.

Suddenly you have rejected a man, as a result of contradictory beliefs and actions, even though you had compatible views (both of you wanted the man, as the asker, to pay).

No, it is not short-sided because anyone who does not pay when they were the person who asked, is not someone who has compatibles views with me.  If they are willing not to, then they are not compatible. It is not that I won't pay, and I have.  If I invite someone out on a date, I pay.  I've done it before, though I won't do again, I'm married.  It is about etiquette, not money. 

[Bakari]

1. I respect stay-at-home moms and dads equally.  I hope one of my sons gets to be a stay-at-home dad - he would be well suited for it.

I acknowledged in advance that it wasn't universal, and that many forum members are exceptions.  In most of society being a house husband is stigmatized.

4. I do not equate good manners in terms of door opening, bringing of flowers, or initiating a first kiss as reinforcing of crossing the line behaviours by either sex including catcalling, aggression or a search for a sugar daddy.  If you don't have good internal boundaries custom and tradition are not the problem.

Wouldn't good manners dictate that if a woman got to the door first, she hold it open for her date?  If it is supposed to go along gender lines, its about more than politeness, there's a social role aspect.  All of those things, but especially always being the one to initiate the first kiss, there is a dominance and submission aspect to it.  Do you really not see how it would tend to increase a guy inadvertently giving unwanted attention if all his life he has been expected to be the one to initiate contact? You don't see how, if a guy knows it is his job to go in for a kiss, he might sometimes get it wrong and be guilty of sexual harassment?  Its a slippery slope from expecting the guy to make the first move to trying to subtle encourage him to do so when he doesn't on his own to playing hard to get to saying no when you really mean yes.  And if that is a guys experience with women, he learns that no doesn't always mean no, because for some women it doesn't, because they want to stay in the submissive role.  In one survey more than half of sexually active college women admitted to saying no when they really wanted to proceed, sometimes explicitly with the explanation that they wanted the guy to be more aggressive.  Its a pretty extreme version of waiting for him to make the first move, but it isn't qualitatively different, its just further down the continuum.  And I should think its clear how that encourages sexual assault.

5. I do agree that men get the short end of the stick with feminism - it has gone too far in relation to child custody and some of the expectations that are placed on men to earn a living for a family.  It is annoying to see how unequal things sometimes have worked out all in the name of equality.

I don't really understand - how does feminism place extra expectations on men to earn a living for the family?

[Celda]

No, it is not short-sided because anyone who does not pay when they were the person who asked, is not someone who has compatibles views with me.  If they are willing not to, then they are not compatible.

You (or a hypothetical person) are on a date with someone that you find compatible, common interests, both of you find the other person interesting and attractive, etc. The date is going well and conversation is flowing nicely. Let's assume that you are so compatible that, if you could see the future, it would end up in a long-term relationship.

He asked you out, and he prefers to pay. He starts to bring out his wallet, but you stop him and offer to pay for your share. He prefers to pay, but likes you enough that he acquiesces, thinking "This is going well, I'll just tell her on the second date that I want to treat her".

You would then abandon the potential relationship since he did not insist on paying.

You are claiming that reasoning is quite sensible and not short-sighted.

But I think most people can see why it is.

[Bakari]

  If they are willing not to, then they are not compatible.

If they are willing not to?  Are you saying they should demand it, no matter what?  Like, even if the other person feels strongly about it, if they feel it is insulting or they just have different values, the person who did the asking should ignore their wishes and insist on paying no matter what?

[Gin1984]

1. I respect stay-at-home moms and dads equally.  I hope one of my sons gets to be a stay-at-home dad - he would be well suited for it.

I acknowledged in advance that it wasn't universal, and that many forum members are exceptions.  In most of society being a house husband is stigmatized.

4. I do not equate good manners in terms of door opening, bringing of flowers, or initiating a first kiss as reinforcing of crossing the line behaviours by either sex including catcalling, aggression or a search for a sugar daddy.  If you don't have good internal boundaries custom and tradition are not the problem.

Wouldn't good manners dictate that if a woman got to the door first, she hold it open for her date?  If it is supposed to go along gender lines, its about more than politeness, there's a social role aspect.  All of those things, but especially always being the one to initiate the first kiss, there is a dominance and submission aspect to it.  Do you really not see how it would tend to increase a guy inadvertently giving unwanted attention if all his life he has been expected to be the one to initiate contact? You don't see how, if a guy knows it is his job to go in for a kiss, he might sometimes get it wrong and be guilty of sexual harassment? Its a slippery slope from expecting the guy to make the first move to trying to subtle encourage him to do so when he doesn't on his own to playing hard to get to saying no when you really mean yes.  And if that is a guys experience with women, he learns that no doesn't always mean no, because for some women it doesn't, because they want to stay in the submissive role.  In one survey more than half of sexually active college women admitted to saying no when they really wanted to proceed, sometimes explicitly with the explanation that they wanted the guy to be more aggressive.  Its a pretty extreme version of waiting for him to make the first move, but it isn't qualitatively different, its just further down the continuum.  And I should think its clear how that encourages sexual assault.

5. I do agree that men get the short end of the stick with feminism - it has gone too far in relation to child custody and some of the expectations that are placed on men to earn a living for a family.  It is annoying to see how unequal things sometimes have worked out all in the name of equality.

I don't really understand - how does feminism place extra expectations on men to earn a living for the family?

Explain, exactly, how exactly someone may end up "accidentally" sexually harassing someone?  Going for a kiss at the end of a date is not harassment.  But maybe if one cannot understand non-verbal cues, they should ask.

[Gin1984]

No, it is not short-sided because anyone who does not pay when they were the person who asked, is not someone who has compatibles views with me.  If they are willing not to, then they are not compatible.

You (or a hypothetical person) are on a date with someone that you find compatible, common interests, both of you find the other person interesting and attractive, etc. The date is going well and conversation is flowing nicely. Let's assume that you are so compatible that, if you could see the future, it would end up in a long-term relationship.

He asked you out, and he prefers to pay. He starts to bring out his wallet, but you stop him and offer to pay for your share. He prefers to pay, but likes you enough that he acquiesces, thinking "This is going well, I'll just tell her on the second date that I want to treat her".

You would then abandon the potential relationship since he did not insist on paying.

You are claiming that reasoning is quite sensible and not short-sighted.

But I think most people can see why it is.

If that person believes that basic politeness and etiquette is something that can be waved because they liked the person, they are not compatible with me.  That is not short-sighted, because it is something that won't work for ME.  You can have another opinion, but my deal-breakers are mine and mine alone.  And given that I went through all that dating and am now married to a man who met all my dealbreakers, yes, I find them very sensible.

[Gin1984]

  If they are willing not to, then they are not compatible.

If they are willing not to?  Are you saying they should demand it, no matter what?  Like, even if the other person feels strongly about it, if they feel it is insulting or they just have different values, the person who did the asking should ignore their wishes and insist on paying no matter what?

There is major difference between offering once and being refused and insisting on paying.  I am saying that a person should do all they can to pay because they are the host and someone who does not, is not compatible to me.  I am not making a decision for anyone else, only for myself. 

[Celda]

If that person believes that basic politeness and etiquette is something that can be waved because they liked the person, they are not compatible with me.

Insisting on paying for a date, to the point of refusing someone's offer to pay for their own share, is not equivalent to basic politeness and etiquette.

There is major difference between offering once and being refused and insisting on paying.

So you are saying that a man should pay, if he did the asking. If his date offers to pay, he should refuse and re-iterate that he will pay.

If his date again says she wants to pay, he should.....?

[totoro]

4. I do not equate good manners in terms of door opening, bringing of flowers, or initiating a first kiss as reinforcing of crossing the line behaviours by either sex including catcalling, aggression or a search for a sugar daddy.  If you don't have good internal boundaries custom and tradition are not the problem.

Wouldn't good manners dictate that if a woman got to the door first, she hold it open for her date?  If it is supposed to go along gender lines, its about more than politeness, there's a social role aspect.  All of those things, but especially always being the one to initiate the first kiss, there is a dominance and submission aspect to it.  Do you really not see how it would tend to increase a guy inadvertently giving unwanted attention if all his life he has been expected to be the one to initiate contact? You don't see how, if a guy knows it is his job to go in for a kiss, he might sometimes get it wrong and be guilty of sexual harassment?  Its a slippery slope from expecting the guy to make the first move to trying to subtle encourage him to do so when he doesn't on his own to playing hard to get to saying no when you really mean yes.  And if that is a guys experience with women, he learns that no doesn't always mean no, because for some women it doesn't, because they want to stay in the submissive role.  In one survey more than half of sexually active college women admitted to saying no when they really wanted to proceed, sometimes explicitly with the explanation that they wanted the guy to be more aggressive.  Its a pretty extreme version of waiting for him to make the first move, but it isn't qualitatively different, its just further down the continuum.  And I should think its clear how that encourages sexual assault.

I do not agree that holding a door open or initiating a kiss encourages sexual assault at all.  That is like saying that parents are encouraged to severely beat their children because, hey, kids act up, parents have to discipline them and the parents are dominant and stronger.  Hey, if you're in charge and dominant you get a free pass right?

The fact is that there is a strong social stigma against assault of all types by a stronger party against a weaker and if you have not internalized this boundary you have serious issues.   The social response to this is so strong it has been criminalized.

I do agree that the socially accepted view of men as more likely to participate in sexual assault unfairly stigmatizes some men and makes them vulnerable to a deliberately deceptive female.  I also agree very strongly that men are more likely to be at risk from false accusations of sexual harassment.  That is totally unfair and I think the rules of proof need to be a bit more stringent than they are currently.

5. I do agree that men get the short end of the stick with feminism - it has gone too far in relation to child custody and some of the expectations that are placed on men to earn a living for a family.  It is annoying to see how unequal things sometimes have worked out all in the name of equality.

I don't really understand - how does feminism place extra expectations on men to earn a living for the family?

Feminism does not place extra expectations, the laws as written do as women are still more likely to get custody and men are more likely to be required to work and pay over funds as a result with little analysis as to substantive equality or, in fact, the best interests of the children imo.  This is, again imo, a result of the intersection of the traditional view of the man as the breadwinner and woman as caregiver with some of the changes for child/spousal support that were a result of lobbying by women's groups primarily.  The end result is unfair to men now I believe given the bias expressed by the courts.

[totoro]

I think the thing you have to remember about this is that we are not all dating each other here.  The trick is you only need one and I agree that a set of criteria is important.  Knowing your values and your deal breakers stop you from wasting your time and theirs.   

If you want to pay everything dollar for dollar on the first date and forever and that is important for you because you think someone is entitled if they don't agree - well, there is someone out there for you who is going to agree.  It is not me and it is not the vast majority of women and men, but there is a matchers for you. 

We should all be glad that we don't have to test this out on first dates cause there would be a bunch of awkward moments I suspect.   This is not an I'm right, you're wrong question.  This is a values question that needs to be right for you and your SO.

[LowER]

Why does it matter if you have boobs, penis, vagina, or all the above or none or any combination in between or beyond, if you asked someone out on a date, YOU pay for it.  It's YOUR invite. 

Why so much typing about something so patently obvious?

[golfer44]

Why does it matter if you have boobs, penis, vagina, or all the above or none or any combination in between or beyond, if you asked someone out on a date, YOU pay for it.  It's YOUR invite. 

Why so much typing about something so patently obvious?

+1

[sunnyca]

If that person believes that basic politeness and etiquette is something that can be waved because they liked the person, they are not compatible with me.

Insisting on paying for a date, to the point of refusing someone's offer to pay for their own share, is not equivalent to basic politeness and etiquette.

There is major difference between offering once and being refused and insisting on paying.

So you are saying that a man should pay, if he did the asking. If his date offers to pay, he should refuse and re-iterate that he will pay.

If his date again says she wants to pay, he should.....?

For the record, I have a coworker that would do "the reach," not because she meant it, but out of politeness and as a test.  She told me this story once about how she went on four dates with some guy (he always paid, although she always did "the reach"). On the fifth date, she offered to pay, and he accepted. She was so miffed that she never went on another date with him again.

Apparently, the consensus between her friends was that during the courting phase, so to speak, the guy should always pay. She now has a bf that's very willing to accommodate that.

Just to reiterate that it takes all kinds.

[wtjbatman]

For the record, I have a coworker that would do "the reach," not because she meant it, but out of politeness and as a test.  She told me this story once about how she went on four dates with some guy (he always paid, although she always did "the reach"). On the fifth date, she offered to pay, and he accepted. She was so miffed that she never went on another date with him again.

Apparently, the consensus between her friends was that during the courting phase, so to speak, the guy should always pay. She now has a bf that's very willing to accommodate that.

Just to reiterate that it takes all kinds.

I'm kind of old fashioned, and I'm pretty much on board with the man pays (I like the idea of asker pays, but I've literally always asked the woman out, so I always pay), but I'm talking about the first and maybe second date. But the 5th date? So possibly a month or month and a half in, he let her pay for something, and she was miffed? Wow. I imagine he's A-OK with them not going on another date.

[HappierAtHome]

For the record, I have a coworker that would do "the reach," not because she meant it, but out of politeness and as a test.  She told me this story once about how she went on four dates with some guy (he always paid, although she always did "the reach"). On the fifth date, she offered to pay, and he accepted. She was so miffed that she never went on another date with him again.

Apparently, the consensus between her friends was that during the courting phase, so to speak, the guy should always pay. She now has a bf that's very willing to accommodate that.

Just to reiterate that it takes all kinds.

I'm kind of old fashioned, and I'm pretty much on board with the man pays (I like the idea of asker pays, but I've literally always asked the woman out, so I always pay), but I'm talking about the first and maybe second date. But the 5th date? So possibly a month or month and a half in, he let her pay for something, and she was miffed? Wow. I imagine he's A-OK with them not going on another date.

Yeah, that's a very clear signal that someone's not interested in a partnership of equals...

I can't believe how many men have never been asked out by a woman.

[mm1970]

I have a funny feeling most of the "whoever asks, pays" crowd have either never or rarely asked someone out. Convenient. Entitled, but convenient.

Back in the dark ages, when I started dating my husband -

we were young and broke and in the Navy.  He asked me on a date.  To go play volleyball at a high school.  Pick up games, I think it was $6 each, he paid.  Then he cooked me dinner after.

I asked him on our second date to a movie, but I don't remember who paid.  Because, you know, dark ages.

From then on, we generally split it, or took turns.

[Emg03063]

Man should always pay for the first date but it is nice if the woman offers to split but man should always pay for first date.

What if the date consists of two men or two women? 

Add me to the asker pays camp.  For the record, I'm a man that has dated both men and women.  I appreciate the offer to split, and reciprocity, but asker pays is the etiquette unless otherwise agreed to, IMO.  Any here upset about the lack of balance in female asks should keep in mind that there is an average 30% gender pay gap (in the US at least), which should cover all of your dating needs.  When that's closed, feel free to resume the complaining.

[Celda]

Any here upset about the lack of balance in female asks should keep in mind that there is an average 30% gender pay gap

Women never asking any men out on dates is unrelated to income. But your statement is quite wrong anyway.

First of all, what you mean is that when you compare all women who work at least 35 hours per week, with all men who work at least 35 hours per week, women earn 77% of what men do, not 70%.

Second of all: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jan/29/barack-obama/barack-obama-state-union-says-women-make-77-cents-/

The reason why women earn less than men, is because they work less hours on average, are more likely to choose easier, lower-paying jobs than men, and are more likely to quit work than men. This means that women should be earning less than men - it would be quite unjust and discriminatory if women earned the same as men if these facts remained true.

[totoro]

Women choose lower paying jobs because they are easier?  Really? 

Lower paying jobs are easier than higher paying ones?  Really?

I just stopped paying attention.

[Celda]

The facts don't change regardless of whether you believe them.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111903454504576486690371838036?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424053111903454504576486690371838036.html

Among "physicians and surgeons," for example, women make only 64.2 percent of what men make. Outrageous, right? Not if you consider that there are dozens of specialties in medicine: some, like cardiac surgery, require years of extra training, grueling hours, and life-and-death procedures; others, like pediatrics, are less demanding and consequently less highly rewarded.

Only 16 percent of surgeons, but a full 50 percent of pediatricians, are women. So the statement that female doctors make only 64.2 percent of what men make is really on the order of a tautology, much like saying that a surgeon working 50 hours a week makes significantly more than a pediatrician working 37.

Women are less likely to choose jobs that require great sacrifice, such as oil rig work. Jobs that require great sacrifice pay more, on average, than jobs that do not.

[MgoSam]

I'm mixed on this, for first date I will always offer to pay and will pay even if my date offers to. I agree with those that said, those that ask should pay. That said, I don't know what to do for future dates especially as it can really add up over time. Thankfully I am a fairly competent cook and from my experience the ladies I have dated have appreciated being cooked for way more than being taken out.

To the person that suggested a picnic, have you done that on a first date? How did it go? I feel that would be too personal on a first date, most first dates for me are more like getting to know the person so I would prefer having them in a neutral place.

[Celda]

OP, if I were you I'd just act as though it's understood that people are paying for their own share.

So for instance, if it's a place like a coffee shop, just order your own thing and then step back to let her order.

If it's a restaurant, just ask for separate bills.

If she doesn't like it, that is good - you did not waste any money in order to find out that you're not compatible.

That is assuming that you are not fine with paying for dates of course, if you are fine with paying on dates then just pay.

[chasesfish]

I'm in the camp of the man attempting to pay on the first date, even if its going bad. 

[golfer44]

Lower paying jobs are easier than higher paying ones?  Really?

I'll take the bait - yes.

[iwasjustwondering]

The facts don't change regardless of whether you believe them.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111903454504576486690371838036?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424053111903454504576486690371838036.html

Among "physicians and surgeons," for example, women make only 64.2 percent of what men make. Outrageous, right? Not if you consider that there are dozens of specialties in medicine: some, like cardiac surgery, require years of extra training, grueling hours, and life-and-death procedures; others, like pediatrics, are less demanding and consequently less highly rewarded.

Only 16 percent of surgeons, but a full 50 percent of pediatricians, are women. So the statement that female doctors make only 64.2 percent of what men make is really on the order of a tautology, much like saying that a surgeon working 50 hours a week makes significantly more than a pediatrician working 37.

Women are less likely to choose jobs that require great sacrifice, such as oil rig work. Jobs that require great sacrifice pay more, on average, than jobs that do not.

Women are less likely to choose jobs that put them far from civilization, alone, in the company of a number of men they don't know.  If we're going to talk statistics, let's talk about men and crime.

[iwasjustwondering]

OP, if I were you I'd just act as though it's understood that people are paying for their own share.

So for instance, if it's a place like a coffee shop, just order your own thing and then step back to let her order.

If it's a restaurant, just ask for separate bills.

If she doesn't like it, that is good - you did not waste any money in order to find out that you're not compatible.

That is assuming that you are not fine with paying for dates of course, if you are fine with paying on dates then just pay.

The question is about the first date.  The person who does the inviting should do the paying, especially on a first date.  I would assume that a man who invited me out on a first date and then acted annoyed at the thought that he should pay was an angry, weird guy.  It's a date.  It's supposed to be fun, not a tense, angry test of the other person's character. 

[norabird]

Some posters on here (mostly men!) are assuming that it's women who drive the continued tradition of men paying. But it's men who drive that, too! We all operate under and are constrained by the same social norms. Some men really feel it's important they pay. I will offer to buy a round of drinks on a first date, and have certainly done so; but there is a gender neutral assumption, often, that a woman not wanting to be paid for on a first date is uninterested. And when I'm not interested I'm especially assertive about going dutch. If I like someone, and they offer to pay, while I may also offer to share the cost, letting them take care of it so is a signal that I don't mind being under a slight obligation to the person. After the first date (or the first few), it should become as equal as possible given the respective incomes of the dating parties. But in the beginning the willingness to pay and/or be paid for stands in for other things and can be a useful marker. If a man is broke or cares about frugality, then just suggest a first date option that is cheap or free--a picnic in the park, a walk somewhere, a free event, etc. Dating doesn't have to involve an outlay of money but the idea of being asked out and told simultaneously 'But we're going dutch' would make me think they don't actually want to date me (and that they are rude and lacking all tact and good sense). Just do something non-monetary if it's a sticking point for you. Or, if you do online dating, explain your approach in your profile so that your attitude is clear from the get-go.

Yes, it's all strange and archaic, but it's not about entitlement. It's about social cues.

[Bakari]

I do agree that the socially accepted view of men as more likely to participate in sexual assault unfairly stigmatizes some men and makes them vulnerable to a deliberately deceptive female.  I also agree very strongly that men are more likely to be at risk from false accusations of sexual harassment.  That is totally unfair and I think the rules of proof need to be a bit more stringent than they are currently.[/b]

I suspect its very rarely a deliberately deceptive female. I think its born of a misunderstanding, when a guy has an idea that he is supposed to take charge and she expects a standard of mutual explicit consent.  That situation could easily be avoided if everyone had a standard of mutual explicit consent, been then you lose that sexy power dynamic of a strong assertive man and a passive receptive woman.  Similarly, one persons courtship is another person's harassment

For the record, I have a coworker that would do "the reach," not because she meant it, but out of politeness and as a test.

Being deliberately deceptive about your intentions and expectations in order to "test" someone is a terrible way to begin a potential relationship and sets the stage for a relationship filled with dishonesty.  What a precedent to set! Will you also fake support their decision to take a better job with longer hours, as a test to see if they will ultimately turn it down because they should know what you really want (without you saying so), and if they "really loved you" they would prioritize that.
That kind of thing is super common, and it makes for unhappy stress filled relationships.  Don't "test" people.  Be honest, and expect the same.

[Bakari]

Some posters on here (mostly men!) are assuming that it's women who drive the continued tradition of men paying. But it's men who drive that, too!

yes, I admit that.  I do always offer to pay (even if she asked me out), and I have no problem with that.
The two things I'm objecting to is the assumption that the man should always do the initial asking, and most especially the idea of fake offering to pay ones own share, and then holding it against the person for accepting the offer.
There are some women who feel strongly enough about their independence that they would be offended to be paid for on a first date.  How can I know which are those?  Well, they are likely to suggest each paying our own way.  So me, trying to be respectful of the other person's desires, go along with what they say they want, instead of insisting on doing things my way.  That, to me, is basic politeness.

[CommonCents]

however, if I had no interest whatsoever in the person I would go to the waiter and slip him my half of the bill, plus a tip and let my "date" know after the fact that I had taken care of my part.

I wouldn't sneak it, but I would try to insist VERY hard that I pay if I didn't think it was or should be a date, or wasn't interested in the person in the slightest.  I was asked out on a "stealth" date one time.  (This is a situation where you think you are going somewhere as friends, but discover they think and are trying to make it into a date.)  Here insisting to pay is critical, to show you don't see it as a date.  I failed in that case because he was more stubborn than me at it gets completely ridiculous at some point to continue arguing. 

I generally casually pay, without saying anything about it either way - like she is reaching in her wallet, but I already gave them the entire amount.

When she objects (which is usually) I suggest she pay next time, which both makes it egalitarian and gives an excuse for a second date.

Sounds perfect.

I do agree with this, as a smooth way to suggest the next date (and to keep it more equal) if it's going well.  My recollection is that my husband did this, not that there was a question of a second date at that point.  And as mentioned upthread, I did pay although he picked the location.

Men are still expected to be manly, few people (of either gender) really respect a stay-at-home dad, men are always supposed to be assertive (if not dominant), most especially when it comes to romance.  Its not just paying for the date, its being the one to hold the door, being the one to bring flowers or offer a massage or plan the perfect evening, and of course being the one to both ask for the initial date and make the first moves toward physical intimacy.
 

Ooooh, a massage.  Men do this?  I might consider divorcing my husband for someone who gives regular massages, male or female.

Really, you are bothered by who holds open doors?  It’s a fading tradition in any event, and women will hold open for the person behind them even if they don’t stand to the side to let the person through first (but men don’t do this so much anymore either).

In the context of a committed relationship, I have to say I’ve largely planned most dates.  I think it tends to be the asker (predominately men) who plan dates while dating, but the female who tends to plan dates in committed relationships.

Equally I could point out that the vast majority of women I know are the ones to cook for their husbands.  (I know reading here that some guys DO most of the cooking, I’ve just rarely seen that in real life.  I’m even awed by the share it 50/50 in real life.  I only got 50/50 for ONE meal last week because I was home sick from work 2 nights and not up to cooking.)

Its a slippery slope from expecting the guy to make the first move to trying to subtle encourage him to do so when he doesn't on his own to playing hard to get to saying no when you really mean yes.  And if that is a guys experience with women, he learns that no doesn't always mean no, because for some women it doesn't, because they want to stay in the submissive role.  In one survey more than half of sexually active college women admitted to saying no when they really wanted to proceed, sometimes explicitly with the explanation that they wanted the guy to be more aggressive.  Its a pretty extreme version of waiting for him to make the first move, but it isn't qualitatively different, its just further down the continuum.  And I should think its clear how that encourages sexual assault.

Let’s nip this one in the bud, shall we?  No means no.  If this means educating some women (not just men) that no means no and they should only use it when they mean no, so be it.  (Note that an explicit explanation that it doesn’t mean no, would fall under a yes category, since they’ve well, said yes...  This experience shouldn’t be translated to another relationship as anything more than “listen to what the other person is saying.”)  But no means no.  There is no slippery slope here.

I have a funny feeling most of the "whoever asks, pays" crowd have either never or rarely asked someone out. Convenient. Entitled, but convenient.

I disagree, and thing it's pretty rude of you to assume that.

+1

And for the record, I have asked people out.  I’m just smart enough to suggest activities that aren’t expensive dinners (or even involve any money at all).  :)

[norabird]

There are some women who feel strongly enough about their independence that they would be offended to be paid for on a first date.  How can I know which are those?  Well, they are likely to suggest each paying our own way.  So me, trying to be respectful of the other person's desires, go along with what they say they want, instead of insisting on doing things my way.  That, to me, is basic politeness.

This is an excellent place to come from. And it can work very well to have two people who mutually prefer to split the cost. I don't think we should judge those who conform to the norm of the man paying, however reaching a point where assumptions about who pays (and whether the man therefore generally has more power than the woman, by taking on some sort of 'provider' role) are no longer an issue. Sometimes it's easier to be utopian about the gender relation stuff in principle than it is in practice, though. I've asked men out before, and I try to be enlightened about gender roles, but wanting to protect myself does give me pause about acting on all of the abstract opinions I have about how things 'should' work, for fear of how it actually works in practice.

It's complicated and everyone has to find the balance that's right for them.

[mbl]

There are some women who feel strongly enough about their independence that they would be offended to be paid for on a first date.  How can I know which are those?  Well, they are likely to suggest each paying our own way.  So me, trying to be respectful of the other person's desires, go along with what they say they want, instead of insisting on doing things my way.  That, to me, is basic politeness.

This is an excellent place to come from. And it can work very well to have two people who mutually prefer to split the cost. I don't think we should judge those who conform to the norm of the man paying, however reaching a point where assumptions about who pays (and whether the man therefore generally has more power than the woman, by taking on some sort of 'provider' role) are no longer an issue. Sometimes it's easier to be utopian about the gender relation stuff in principle than it is in practice, though. I've asked men out before, and I try to be enlightened about gender roles, but wanting to protect myself does give me pause about acting on all of the abstract opinions I have about how things 'should' work, for fear of how it actually works in practice.

It's complicated and everyone has to find the balance that's right for them.

This comment refers to the first date or two:    It's sad that people have lost the ability to be gracious.   Not just in offering to pay but in politely allowing the host to pay.
When one is asked on a date, in essence, they are "hosting".    I don't really see how any man or woman takes on a risk of their independence being compromised because they politely accepted having their dinner companion  pay for the meal.   A kind and genuine word of appreciation might go a lot further in making a connection with someone.

[totoro]

Lower paying jobs are easier than higher paying ones?  Really?

I'll take the bait - yes.

My job as a highly paid professional is much easier than my job picking grapes or working retail was.  Picking grapes was hard physical labour.  Retail was mind-numbingly boring.  While there is some value in hard physical labour for health, the retail had no redeeming features I can think of. 

I guess it depends on your definition of hard.

[totoro]

I do agree that the socially accepted view of men as more likely to participate in sexual assault unfairly stigmatizes some men and makes them vulnerable to a deliberately deceptive female.  I also agree very strongly that men are more likely to be at risk from false accusations of sexual harassment.  That is totally unfair and I think the rules of proof need to be a bit more stringent than they are currently.[/b]

I suspect its very rarely a deliberately deceptive female. I think its born of a misunderstanding, when a guy has an idea that he is supposed to take charge and she expects a standard of mutual explicit consent.  That situation could easily be avoided if everyone had a standard of mutual explicit consent, been then you lose that sexy power dynamic of a strong assertive man and a passive receptive woman.  Similarly, one persons courtship is another person's harassment

I strongly disagree.  In order to reach a human rights tribunal there here have to be enough "bad facts" that an arbitrator is willing to accept a complaint.  A mere misunderstanding does not get you there.   

This type of complaint usually arises in the workplace.  The majority of accepted complaints have some degree of merit but a convincing liar can get far with the system because it is simply he said she said and the woman has the weight of social reaction/public opinion going in her favour. 

Why does a woman do this?  She is aware that the process will not cost her anything, the burden of proof is low and the change of financial gain is high because a store and individual would want to settle rather than go through a public process that is bad for business.

There are a small percentage of female employees, particularly those who work in unskilled jobs and low paying jobs, who I have observed to be willing to work the system.  It is a practice just like the practice of staged car accidents for insurance benefits, that exists in certain subgroups who rely on the stigma attaching to "harassment" and the belief that man are harassers to get money.

In addition to convincing liars, there are also women with poor mental health, perhaps because of past trauma, who see harassment where, in my opinion, none exists. 

None of this means that harassment does not exist in the workplace or elsewhere, or that it is only men who are accused of it.