going dutch on a first date

Man...
Not only is chivelry dying a slow death but, it appears that many of the women actually get offended when a man tries to do the things that a man is supposed to do.

The world is changing and I am staying the same.

Because women don't want to rely on a man to do the things that they can do...

it's not hard to understand, really....Men suck...

I suppose so.
No more opening doors.
No more waiting for her to sit before sitting down.
No more.... well... anything I suppose.

Man...
Not only is chivelry dying a slow death but, it appears that many of the women actually get offended when a man tries to do the things that a man is supposed to do.

The world is changing and I am staying the same.

Because women don't want to rely on a man to do the things that they can do...

it's not hard to understand, really....Men suck...

I suppose so.
No more opening doors.
No more waiting for her to sit before sitting down.
No more.... well... anything I suppose.

Those are manners. I open the door for ANYONE.

No...
A man pays becanse that is what a man does.
If a woman has a flat tire and is about to put on the spare.. NO!!!!
A man will always do that for her.
A man will do the dirty things although the woman is totally capable of doing it herself.
That is what a man does.
And a man pays for the meal when dating.
Even if she made it perfectly clear that she isn't going to "put out" yet.
The man picks up the bill.

There, you are implying that a woman shouldn't do those things. The women I know don't want to rely on a man to do those things.

So... really... what is the difference between opening a door and changing a tire?
A woman is capable of doing both things, right?
It is not a matter of reliance. I am not suggesting that a woman walks up to a door and just stands there, confused by the "push" sign.
I am also not suggesting that a woman gets a flat tire and just stares at it dumbfounded.
I am suggesting that, if possible, a man, a REAL man SHOULD take care of these types of tasks.
Several years back, my wife took one of the old trucks I was rebuilding to the store and, after forgetting to turn off the lights, she killed the battery.
She called me up for a jump start.
I got there and she was standing there, hood up and cables in her hand.
Not ONE SINGLE PERSON was "man" enough to simply pull up and offer to help with a jump.
That is where we have gone as a society.
Lots of males around but not a single man.

I always offer to pay but if he accepts it on a first date then he's probably going to the friend zone.

I used to not be strict about this and, consequently, I always ended up with guys who were never chivalrous and never treated me to anything because I didn't hold them to that standard in the beginning.

This said, I'm no gold digger. Walks in the park, museums, window shopping and strolling are all free dates.

Ah, so your disingenuous offer to pay is simply a surprise "test" for the guy. If he accepts, he's friend-zoned, while if he goes all caveman on you and responds "No! You woman! Me big man! Me pay!" then he's dating material.

Thanks for clearing that up.

If a guy asks me out on a date, he should pay. Sorry, that's how I roll. If he's rude about it, per your example, than that's another thing to consider. Once we are dating, I'm all for splitting the check or even covering it. Anyone who knows me knows that I offer with good intentions all the time AND that I cover far more than my fair share all the time. On a first date, however, I want chivalry.

Given that I've been told - often, by more than one person - that insisting on getting my way (such as, insisting I pay for a meal after the other person has offered to pay their share) is rude, I'm not sure how to avoid being "rude about it" given your rubric. Apparently it's possible - in theory - to get a second date within your criteria, but the odds look overwhelmingly stacked against it.

Given that I've been told - often, by more than one person - that insisting on getting my way (such as, insisting I pay for a meal after the other person has offered to pay their share) is rude, I'm not sure how to avoid being "rude about it" given your rubric. Apparently it's possible - in theory - to get a second date within your criteria, but the odds look overwhelmingly stacked against it.

Hm. You are quite worked up over this. I honestly don't know why you are so bitter.

By rude, I meant your precise example: He responds "No! You woman! Me big man! Me pay!" then he's dating material.
If someone said that to me, or was clearly dominating in that fashion, I wouldn't like that either.

99% of the time in my recent dates, here's how it goes down.

Me: Would you like me to pay half?
Him: No, I've got this.
Me: Thank you. That is kind of you. Ill get drinks.

It's really not as dramatic as you are making it out to be.

I say Show Me The Money, Buy my Food, and put a ring on it for cryin out loud..

Oh, boo hoo, some double standards are dying out. How sad.

This does not have to mean an end to civility. There is no reason a woman couldn't offer a jump, no reason a woman can't hold the door. The end of sexism and the end of civility are two separate issues.

I have held doors for men who get bent out of shape because they think it is belittling and challenges their manhood. I have also held doors for men who say thank you and walk on through. I consider the second more of a gentleman.

It might be important to emphisize that I am not suggesting that a man has to put his jacket over a puddle so his date doesn't step in water.
Nor am I saying that he has to do a "Dukes of Hazzard" hood slide just to get the door for her.

At the same time, if it is raining and you only have one small umbrella, the girl gets it.
If the temprature drops suddenly (yes, it does that even here in South Florida), the girl gets the jacket. Even if it means that the man is a bit uncomfortablly cold.

The end result is that the woman is simply worth more. Her comfort outweighs that of the man.
With that said, my wife still has no problem unloading sod from the truck, helping hang drywall (she is actually better then me), or offering a hand under the hood.

Man...
Not only is chivelry dying a slow death but, it appears that many of the women actually get offended when a man tries to do the things that a man is supposed to do.

The world is changing and I am staying the same.

Because women don't want to rely on a man to do the things that they can do...

it's not hard to understand, really....Men suck...

I suppose so.
No more opening doors.
No more waiting for her to sit before sitting down.
No more.... well... anything I suppose.

Those are manners. I open the door for ANYONE.

No...
A man pays becanse that is what a man does.
If a woman has a flat tire and is about to put on the spare.. NO!!!!
A man will always do that for her.
A man will do the dirty things although the woman is totally capable of doing it herself.
That is what a man does.
And a man pays for the meal when dating.
Even if she made it perfectly clear that she isn't going to "put out" yet.
The man picks up the bill.

There, you are implying that a woman shouldn't do those things. The women I know don't want to rely on a man to do those things.

So... really... what is the difference between opening a door and changing a tire?
A woman is capable of doing both things, right?
It is not a matter of reliance. I am not suggesting that a woman walks up to a door and just stands there, confused by the "push" sign.
I am also not suggesting that a woman gets a flat tire and just stares at it dumbfounded.
I am suggesting that, if possible, a man, a REAL man SHOULD take care of these types of tasks.
Several years back, my wife took one of the old trucks I was rebuilding to the store and, after forgetting to turn off the lights, she killed the battery.
She called me up for a jump start.
I got there and she was standing there, hood up and cables in her hand.
Not ONE SINGLE PERSON was "man" enough to simply pull up and offer to help with a jump.
That is where we have gone as a society.
Lots of males around but not a single man.

That has nothing to do with not being "man" enough. A woman driving past also very well could have stopped to help her jump the car.

In fact,I recently killed my battery in a parking lot. A WOMAN pulled up to help me. Imagine that? What she really a man in disguise? Is she "man" enough?

Obviously someone should have stopped to help your wife, but what they had in their pants wasn't what stopped them.

My problem with your thinking is this "man enough" and "real man" type thing. These are not things that make a "real man," these are things that make a courteous person.

Man...
Not only is chivelry dying a slow death but, it appears that many of the women actually get offended when a man tries to do the things that a man is supposed to do.

The world is changing and I am staying the same.

Because women don't want to rely on a man to do the things that they can do...

it's not hard to understand, really....Men suck...

I suppose so.
No more opening doors.
No more waiting for her to sit before sitting down.
No more.... well... anything I suppose.

Those are manners. I open the door for ANYONE.

No...
A man pays becanse that is what a man does.
If a woman has a flat tire and is about to put on the spare.. NO!!!!
A man will always do that for her.
A man will do the dirty things although the woman is totally capable of doing it herself.
That is what a man does.
And a man pays for the meal when dating.
Even if she made it perfectly clear that she isn't going to "put out" yet.
The man picks up the bill.

There, you are implying that a woman shouldn't do those things. The women I know don't want to rely on a man to do those things.

So... really... what is the difference between opening a door and changing a tire?
A woman is capable of doing both things, right?
It is not a matter of reliance. I am not suggesting that a woman walks up to a door and just stands there, confused by the "push" sign.
I am also not suggesting that a woman gets a flat tire and just stares at it dumbfounded.
I am suggesting that, if possible, a man, a REAL man SHOULD take care of these types of tasks.
Several years back, my wife took one of the old trucks I was rebuilding to the store and, after forgetting to turn off the lights, she killed the battery.
She called me up for a jump start.
I got there and she was standing there, hood up and cables in her hand.
Not ONE SINGLE PERSON was "man" enough to simply pull up and offer to help with a jump.
That is where we have gone as a society.
Lots of males around but not a single man.

That has nothing to do with not being "man" enough. A woman driving past also very well could have stopped to help her jump the car.

In fact,I recently killed my battery in a parking lot. A WOMAN pulled up to help me. Imagine that? What she really a man in disguise? Is she "man" enough?

Obviously someone should have stopped to help your wife, but what they had in their pants wasn't what stopped them.

My problem with your thinking is this "man enough" and "real man" type thing. These are not things that make a "real man," these are things that make a courteous person.

That's your opinion. I absolutely think a real man would offer to help a woman having car trouble. I also think if a woman has the equipment and the knowledge to do it, she should offer to help also. I've done it before. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

I guess I am not old fashioned. I actually prefer to pay for myself on the first date. The reason I say this is because then if the date didn't go so well (or I was just flat out uninterested) then I wouldn't feel obligated to go out with him again. Most guys I have dated in the past usually offer to pay and I tell them thanks but no thanks and say something along the lines of (if I'm interested I'm interested of course) "You can pay for the next date!" Which by doing that let's them know how I felt the date went. This has always worked well for me.

If a guy has asked ME out for dinner then he should pay. You don't invite someone for dinner and not pay, it's bad manners.

I have never gone dutch with a guy - ever. Either he pays the whole bill or I do. I think going dutch is a bigger thing in the US than in the UK.

Man...
Not only is chivelry dying a slow death but, it appears that many of the women actually get offended when a man tries to do the things that a man is supposed to do.

The world is changing and I am staying the same.

Because women don't want to rely on a man to do the things that they can do...

it's not hard to understand, really....Men suck...

I suppose so.
No more opening doors.
No more waiting for her to sit before sitting down.
No more.... well... anything I suppose.

Those are manners. I open the door for ANYONE.

No...
A man pays becanse that is what a man does.
If a woman has a flat tire and is about to put on the spare.. NO!!!!
A man will always do that for her.
A man will do the dirty things although the woman is totally capable of doing it herself.
That is what a man does.
And a man pays for the meal when dating.
Even if she made it perfectly clear that she isn't going to "put out" yet.
The man picks up the bill.

There, you are implying that a woman shouldn't do those things. The women I know don't want to rely on a man to do those things.

So... really... what is the difference between opening a door and changing a tire?
A woman is capable of doing both things, right?
It is not a matter of reliance. I am not suggesting that a woman walks up to a door and just stands there, confused by the "push" sign.
I am also not suggesting that a woman gets a flat tire and just stares at it dumbfounded.
I am suggesting that, if possible, a man, a REAL man SHOULD take care of these types of tasks.
Several years back, my wife took one of the old trucks I was rebuilding to the store and, after forgetting to turn off the lights, she killed the battery.
She called me up for a jump start.
I got there and she was standing there, hood up and cables in her hand.
Not ONE SINGLE PERSON was "man" enough to simply pull up and offer to help with a jump.
That is where we have gone as a society.
Lots of males around but not a single man.

That has nothing to do with not being "man" enough. A woman driving past also very well could have stopped to help her jump the car.

In fact,I recently killed my battery in a parking lot. A WOMAN pulled up to help me. Imagine that? What she really a man in disguise? Is she "man" enough?

Obviously someone should have stopped to help your wife, but what they had in their pants wasn't what stopped them.

My problem with your thinking is this "man enough" and "real man" type thing. These are not things that make a "real man," these are things that make a courteous person.

That's your opinion. I absolutely think a real man would offer to help a woman having car trouble. I also think if a woman has the equipment and the knowledge to do it, she should offer to help also. I've done it before. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

That's my point though. There's nothing that:
1. Make a man inherently have the knowledge or equipment to do these things. The lack of knowledge doesn't emasculate him.
2. Courteous human beings should stop to help another person, regardless of what they have in their pants.

It has nothing to do with being a real man or not. It has everything to do with being a good person.

I suppose we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Maybe it is a generation thing or, maybe too many guys getting manicures and fake tans but, every man SHOULD know how to change a tire, jump start a car, and do an oil change.
I am aware that there are a few exceptions to this (I have heard that many people who live in New York City have never even driven a car).
Again, I have no doubt you will disagree with me on this but, that is my opinion.

Regardless of the financial situation of the male, he should pay for the date. In fact he should pay for all the dates. If this relationship turns into marriage he will either A) Join their funds together to pay for everything they do or obtain -or- Pay for everything for as long as they are married. So whats the big deal? I guess, "if" you are dating someone who is simply financially out of your class altogether then she may not want you to pay for the date because she does not want to eat where you can afford to take her; that would be the exception.

As far as "These chivalrous deeds superficially appear to have positive effects for women (yay, free food! -- yay, a door held open solely based on my gender!), but the underlying rationale is that women are weaker and need to be taken care of or provided for." Man, that's a mouthful of PC garbage. Women do need to be taken care of, loved, appreciated, adored, and yes, sometimes, even paid for in one way or another, and they are worth every bit of it after all they have to put up with us men all of the time.

It is not a "lack of respect" that causes men to pay for the costs of dates, in fact it is respect for females in general.

I have never asked, expected, or been in a situation where a female insisted on paying for her "share" of a first date and quite honestly I would be offended (now once you are actually dating and money is interchanged quite often for various reasons then who cares as it is all for the common good).

Can a female afford to pay for her meal? Probably. Can she change her own car tire? Probably. Can she earn an income equal to or greater than mine? Probably. Can she do 99% of anything that I can do? Probably. The simple fact is that the male ego is a fragile beast and if you are such a well educated, intelligent, modern female that simply will not grasp that basic concept...then their is no hope for any future relationship we may have had. Men "need" to feel important, in some form or fashion, and if you can not grant them the simple feeling of accomplishment received by paying for a meal, movie, drinks, then you are undeserving of their attention.

Back to the OP, in today's PC world, when you offered to pay he probably did not want to offend you by debating the issue; even though you may have inadvertently offended him just by offering. I wouldn't hold it against him, and quite frankly, I would flat out ask him about it. It is not difficult to say "Hey when we went out and I offered to go Dutch, what did you think?" If he says he thought it was great because he was really strapped for cash because of ...xyz, then you know that he did intend to pay even though he wasn't really in a good position to do so; which I would chalk up to him still being a good guy. Of course there could be a hundred responses and you will never know unless you ask the question.

Man...
Not only is chivelry dying a slow death but, it appears that many of the women actually get offended when a man tries to do the things that a man is supposed to do.

The world is changing and I am staying the same.

Because women don't want to rely on a man to do the things that they can do...

it's not hard to understand, really....Men suck...

I suppose so.
No more opening doors.
No more waiting for her to sit before sitting down.
No more.... well... anything I suppose.

Those are manners. I open the door for ANYONE.

No...
A man pays becanse that is what a man does.
If a woman has a flat tire and is about to put on the spare.. NO!!!!
A man will always do that for her.
A man will do the dirty things although the woman is totally capable of doing it herself.
That is what a man does.
And a man pays for the meal when dating.
Even if she made it perfectly clear that she isn't going to "put out" yet.
The man picks up the bill.

There, you are implying that a woman shouldn't do those things. The women I know don't want to rely on a man to do those things.

So... really... what is the difference between opening a door and changing a tire?
A woman is capable of doing both things, right?
It is not a matter of reliance. I am not suggesting that a woman walks up to a door and just stands there, confused by the "push" sign.
I am also not suggesting that a woman gets a flat tire and just stares at it dumbfounded.
I am suggesting that, if possible, a man, a REAL man SHOULD take care of these types of tasks.
Several years back, my wife took one of the old trucks I was rebuilding to the store and, after forgetting to turn off the lights, she killed the battery.
She called me up for a jump start.
I got there and she was standing there, hood up and cables in her hand.
Not ONE SINGLE PERSON was "man" enough to simply pull up and offer to help with a jump.
That is where we have gone as a society.
Lots of males around but not a single man.

That has nothing to do with not being "man" enough. A woman driving past also very well could have stopped to help her jump the car.

In fact,I recently killed my battery in a parking lot. A WOMAN pulled up to help me. Imagine that? What she really a man in disguise? Is she "man" enough?

Obviously someone should have stopped to help your wife, but what they had in their pants wasn't what stopped them.

My problem with your thinking is this "man enough" and "real man" type thing. These are not things that make a "real man," these are things that make a courteous person.

That's your opinion. I absolutely think a real man would offer to help a woman having car trouble. I also think if a woman has the equipment and the knowledge to do it, she should offer to help also. I've done it before. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

That's my point though. There's nothing that:
1. Make a man inherently have the knowledge or equipment to do these things. The lack of knowledge doesn't emasculate him.
2. Courteous human beings should stop to help another person, regardless of what they have in their pants.

It has nothing to do with being a real man or not. It has everything to do with being a good person.

I suppose we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Maybe it is a generation thing or, maybe too many guys getting manicures and fake tans but, every man SHOULD know how to change a tire, jump start a car, and do an oil change.
I am aware that there are a few exceptions to this (I have heard that many people who live in New York City have never even driven a car).
Again, I have no doubt you will disagree with me on this but, that is my opinion.

I completely agree with you digitalbill. It's not about whether or not I (being female) am capable of doing these things; I can. I am able. But when my husbands around... I better not be changing the oil in my car. That's just my opinion though.

I go commando on a first date does that count:)