Survey time: Should a guy pay on a first date?

Most guys that I know don't mind this actually. Now if you embarrass them in public, then its different. I've known guys who just honestly don't know any better. Or sometimes the last girl they dated was an "ultra feminist independent type" so it left a bad taste in their mouth and now they think girls hate when they do nice things.

If a guy treats you in a way that you don't like, even if its something small like he didn't hold the door for you, you should let him know. If he actually gives a damn about you, he'll correct the behavior.

So, if I don't hold the door open for a girl, or worship her every breath, I need to correct my behavior?

the last girl I was with stayed at home, didn't work. I paid for everything. She was a dirty *kitten*. But hey, she was traditional!

So that left a bad taste in my mouth, not women who make me think, "I think she'll be alive next time I come around, since she's an adult and all." Because you know, nothing like having a big, spoiled kid to take care of before you even date! And that's exactly how you seem like you would be.

Then it's your fault for putting up with it. It works both ways, you should have let her know you didn't like it and either gave her a chance to correct her behavior or walk away. No need to take your sour relationship out on me.

Wait, so it's my fault for paying for everything and not making her work and pay for stuff? Doesn't that go against everything you just said?

You said she did nothing, was a spoiled kid, and a dirty *kitten*. I'm saying its your fault for allowing her to treat you so badly and take advantage of you. You shouldn't have to make her do anything but you should also know and respect your own worth and be able to move on when you realize that you deserve better. Its fine if you wanted to take care of her financially but she should take care of you in other ways whether its just being supportive emotionally, taking care of the house, or being there when you need her.

Now if she's going behind your back being a *kitten*, being selfish, and overall just using you, then you should never stay with a person like that at all. There needs to be some kind of balance.

She did nothing as far as going to work. She cleaned, I cooked because I'm a better cook. I say she's a *kitten* because she cheated on me. I say she was a spoiled kid because like you, she believed the man was the provider, and as long as she cleaned at home, she was entitled to everything.

I said a man should plan and pay for the first date, not cater to his womens every whim. I provide for myself quite well, better than many women, and maybe men too, that i know actually. like I said before, no need to be bitter towards me cause you chose a bad partner.

It's just an amusing double standard. Women want equal rights in everything, yet want the man to "be a man" and pay?! Sexist!

Equality should apply to all things, not just certain things.

I've seen women who when a man hold a door open for them, they say "I can do it myself thank you!".

Chivalry is dead...and who killed it?





Women.

*ducks from all the flames*

Sometimes, when appropriate (e.g. someone coming not far behind me, men carrying stuff, etc) I hold doors for men.
Maybe we can reincarnate chivalry and define it as people doing nice things for other people?

I never understood the holding the door open thing for women. I just think its polite to do and I hold the door for others if its a man or women if they are behind me or what not. Its a polite gesture that all people should do.

So in mostly reading most of these, something I've noticed.

There's a lot of women who say the man is the provider, and the man should hold my door open, it's "tradition", etc. If that's the case, are you at home, barefoot and pregnant, keeping the house tidy, the yard clean, his laundry washed, ironed and away, are his meals cooked when he walks in the door after a long day at work? Do you wear clothes that don't show off all your goods and always smile no matter how bad you may want to punch him in the face sometimes? Why should men hold on to said "traditions" while women just get to do whatever they want?

And at what point do we cut a guy a little slack on the first date. He likes you, maybe he thinks you're into him, so he asks you on a date, PURELY to get to know you, not even really thinking "oh **** I might not be able to afford this date" and then at the date too embarrassed to admit that he's just not got enough money. If that's his only fault at the date, why should that be a deal breaker? The poor guy just wanted to get to know you better.

Also, why can a guy not come out of "friend zone"? What if that guy actually is your "perfect" guy?

@chrisanderson

"I wasn't judging you hun, I was judging the rationality of your argument, and its bearing on the validity of any future discussion. so, here's my logic"

You said/implied
Majority of people think men should pay
Therefore, because of this I am right to insist to pay.

I replied:
A societal norm does not necessarily mean it's the right way do do things.
I used women's right to vote as an example.

This is not irrational so not sure where you think the logic is flawed. It is permissible in logic to use examples to argue for a point. To call me irrational after that was ironically irrational of you.

However, your response to my stance that they are comparable, left me scratching my head.
I use a type of gun to hunt (I assume animals)
The Navy used a different gun to kill people in world war 2.
Not sure how that is rational or what point you trying to make.

Umm...a 'comparable' societal norm would be holding doors open.

As for my analogy...

I hunt with a 30-06.
In ww2, the navy used a much larger M1 cannon to bring aircraft out of the sky.

I pay for dates.
100yrs ago women were oppressed and they weren't allowed to vote.

I think that the point is pretty clear. Both of my examples are guns, but are so drastically different in purpose and overall effect as to be incomparable.

Both of your examples are societal norms, but are so drastically different in purpose and overall effect...as to be...you guessed it.

Incomparable.

'Let' is a perfect example of this. I wouldn't 'let' (assuming normal circumstances) you pay on our first date, any more than I'd 'let' you walk in front of a moving bus."
Not sure what you mean by this. Would paying for dinner the same as risking my life?

I asked you which of those threw up the red flag...because that's what you were saying.

Red flags go up when person states absolutes like " I would never" in regards to perfectly normal thing like treating someone to dinner. Yes, woman can show appreciation a different way, but why would you restrict it?

Yes, I did recall that your circumstances had changed but that you stated you had a really hard time accepting this, that you didn't like it. Kinda proves my point that with your insistence on being the provider, it will create a difficult situation. If your masculinity is determined by you being the provider, you may have struggles with your self esteem which almost always has a detrimental effect on relationships.

I was unhappy accepting it mostly because...due to other issues (unrelated to this specific topic), the relationship was in doubt. Had we been together longer, and been more sure of ourselves overall, it would have been the next logical step, and completely accepted. I thought i made that clear in the final statement of that post...but again, my words have been picked apart to mean something they weren't intended to.

My masculinity isn't determined by anything but my own sense of self. Any feelings of insecurity I may or may not have...come from real issues that impact real parts of my life. For example, Arizona is a mother's rights state. My children, that I have sole custody of as we speak...are in very real danger of being forced to live with a woman who has never put their needs before her own, and has proven this time and again, due to that simple fact. All because no one asked me if I wanted to give birth to them.

THAT is something that makes me feel insecure.

Not whether I pay for a date. What not being allowed to pay for a date does, is puts up a red flag (I really dislike that term) that the woman who is refusing to allow this has an overblown sense of her own 'feminist self'...and in the end, it will cause problems for us. Because the definition of 'independence' is counter to the definition of 'together'. If I wanted independence, I'd stay single.

Anyhow, as I said...TotallyTasha gets it. It harms her in NO WAY to give her man the things he needs to be the man she loves...and the fact that she is able to do so without any loss of 'self'...proves that she is truly her own person. I gave my ex girlfriend what she wanted (to help with the bills, and pay for our time together when I wasn't capable) because she felt she needed to, and to not allow it would have been a slap in her face...at the worst possible time for her and us. No, I wasn't happy about it...but the fact that I did it anyway, and appreciated her for it...meant the world to her. And so...by giving up that 'masculinity' you mentioned...I didn't give up anything of my 'self'.

I was able to put her first...which in the end is always more important to me.

Whoever initiated the date first, pays.

GUY SHOULD PAY IN 90 % OF THE TIME OTHER 10% WHEN GIRL ASK HIM AS FRIENDS AND THEY STATE BEFORE HAND THEY'RE GOING DUTCH EVEN THEN YOU SHOULD OFFER TO PAY IT'S JUST MANNERS BUT YOU GOTTA BE CAREFUL SOME GIRLS KNOW THIS AND TRY AND GET A FREE MEAL OUT OF YOU THATS WHEN YOU DIP OUT BEFORE THE CHECK COMES GOTCHA *****

@chrisanderson

"I wasn't judging you hun, I was judging the rationality of your argument, and its bearing on the validity of any future discussion. so, here's my logic"

You said/implied
Majority of people think men should pay
Therefore, because of this I am right to insist to pay.

I replied:
A societal norm does not necessarily mean it's the right way do do things.
I used women's right to vote as an example.

This is not irrational so not sure where you think the logic is flawed. It is permissible in logic to use examples to argue for a point. To call me irrational after that was ironically irrational of you.

However, your response to my stance that they are comparable, left me scratching my head.
I use a type of gun to hunt (I assume animals)
The Navy used a different gun to kill people in world war 2.
Not sure how that is rational or what point you trying to make.

Umm...a 'comparable' societal norm would be holding doors open.

As for my analogy...

I hunt with a 30-06.
In ww2, the navy used a much larger M1 cannon to bring aircraft out of the sky.

I pay for dates.
100yrs ago women were oppressed and they weren't allowed to vote.

I think that the point is pretty clear. Both of my examples are guns, but are so drastically different in purpose and overall effect as to be incomparable.

Both of your examples are societal norms, but are so drastically different in purpose and overall effect...as to be...you guessed it.

Incmoparable.

'Let' is a perfect example of this. I wouldn't 'let' (assuming normal circumstances) you pay on our first date, any more than I'd 'let' you walk in front of a moving bus."
Not sure what you mean by this. Would paying for dinner the same as risking my life?

I asked you which of those threw up the red flag...because that's what you were saying.

Red flags go up when person states absolutes like " I would never" in regards to perfectly normal thing like treating someone to dinner. Yes, woman can show appreciation a different way, but why would you restrict it?

Yes, I did recall that your circumstances had changed but that you stated you had a really hard time accepting this, that you didn't like it. Kinda proves my point that with your insistence on being the provider, it will create a difficult situation. If your masculinity is determined by you being the provider, you may have struggles with your self esteem which almost always has a detrimental effect on relationships.

I was unhappy accepting it mostly because...due to other issues (unrelated to this specific topic), the relationship was in doubt. Had we been together longer, and been more sure of ourselves overall, it would have been the next logical step, and completely accepted. I thought i made that clear in the final statement of that post...but again, my words have been picked apart to mean something they weren't intended to.

My masculinity isn't determined by anything by my own sense of self. Any feelings of insecurity I may or may not have...come from real issues that impact real parts of my life. For example, Arizona is a mother's rights state. My children, that I have sole custody of as we speak...are in very real danger of being forced to live with a woman who has never put their needs before her own, and has proven this time and again, due to that simple fact. All because no one asked me if I wanted to give birth to them.

THAT is something that makes me feel insecure.

Not whether I pay for a date. What not being allowed to pay for a date does, is puts up a red flag (I really dislike that term) that the woman who is refusing to allow this has an overblown sense of her own 'feminist self'...and in the end, it will cause problems for us. Because the definition of 'independence' is counter to the definition of 'together'. If I wanted independence, I'd stay single.

Anyhow, as I said...TotallyTasha gets it. It harms her in NO WAY to give her man the things he needs to be the man she loves...and the fact that she is able to do so without any loss of 'self'...proves that she is truly her own person. I gave my ex girlfriend what she wanted (to help with the bills, and pay for our time together when I wasn't capable) because she felt she needed to, and to not allow it would have been a slap in her face...at the worst possible time for her and us. No, I wasn't happy about it...but the fact that I did it anyway, and appreciated her for it...meant the world to her. And so...by giving up that 'masculinity' you mentioned...I didn't give up anything of my 'self'.

I was able to put her first...which in the end is always more important to me.

The thing is, this started not because a woman not allowing a guy to pay for a date but a guy who stated he would NEVER let a woman pay. Either way it never feels good for someone not being allowed one way or another. A guy shouldn't have to feel intimated because he wants pay for a date but at the same time a woman shouldn't feel intimated for wanting to pay or split a date as well.

The thing is, this started not because a woman not allowing a guy to pay for a date but a guy who stated he would NEVER let a woman pay. Either way it never feels good for someone not being allowed one way or another. A guy shouldn't have to feel intimated because he wants pay for a date but at the same time a woman shouldn't feel intimated for wanting to pay or split a date as well.

I would never willingly let a woman pay for a 'date'. Once it's to the point where it's 'going out' rather than 'going on a date'...that can become a bit more flexible.

And I never said any woman shouldn't be allowed to pay. I have simply stated that if it's that big an issue to her...she wouldn't want to be with me anyhow, and should move on.

I was happy to leave it at that, but got called in 72 ways after.

I think dudes should always pay in general. Since your first date is usually intiated by the guy he should pay.....pretty simple.

So wait, you're saying that a man should always pay? (just making sure I heard you correctly)

I've kind of read some of this and kind of zoned out on other parts.

Here's my opinions - While I love it when a guy pays, I'm always open to splitting it. I don't mind at all. I feel like then there's no pressure, no expectations, etc.

And now, with my boyfriend - I pay for most everything. Why? I make 2.5 times more than him so I can afford it more than he can, and I'm the one who WANTS to go out. If it is something he really wants to do and wants me to come along (like some concert with some weird band), he pays. But generally, I do.

Well, this is all very silly! But I'm enjoying it.

I think you're all right. Because, here's the thing. Nobody *should* be doing anything (except following the law, but you get what I mean). We all do what we want. And then, we judge everyone else accordingly. If someone offers to pay and the other party is offended...then, clearly they don't have compatible views on things. And shouldn't date again.

As for me, I could care less. But I will say, I don't like game playing. A lady shouldn't verbally offer to pay if its all really a test. She can reach for the bill, and let him graciously offer, "oh no, I've got it." But to actually say "Oh no, Dave. Its fine, I've got it" when you really mean "you better not let me pay. This is a test of your manhood, your manners, and your morals. Choose your next words *very carefully*..." That's the kind of silliness that gives women a bad name.

There are no hard-and-fast rules, as far as I'm concerned. Generally, I think that whoever asks should pay. Once you've progressed into a relationship, there should be more give-and take. For me, I've usually let the guy pay at the beginning, then after that, it's whichever one of us has money at the time.

I would never offer to pay if I didn't intend to pay. I don't understand that. It's just dishonest.

I will always offer to pay my half on the first date but if you actually let me pay, there will NEVER be a second date. Please, be a gentleman and pick up the tab. Hold my door open and stand back as I walk through. All these little things make me feel like the lady that I am. I don't mind paying every once in a while once we are dating but the man should definitely pay for the first date.

Lol, I love this thread. For those that don't know, yes I pay for first dates, open doors, blah blah blah.

I hate the head of the household bullsh*t and certainly don't need to drain my bank account to feel like a man.

One other poster mentioned on here the cooking, cleaning, maintaining the house side of traditionialist values. I find it ironic how many women these days SUCK at cooking, cleaning or any of the other traditionalist roles that are complementary to the belief that a man should be the sole provider. I grew up around women that were self-maintaining and independent and it's probably the reason I have these views. I was in awe that women/wives were incapable of driving, pumping gas, mowing the lawn, maintaining a car, dealing with finances etc. I always run across the I want my cake and eat it too syndrome. The I'm pretty, you owe me something because I'm a girl, and by the way, I'll cook for you once a month or give you access to my precious time to keep up my end of the deal.

And think about it, typical time to get married/move in together is years! Why would I pay for everything in-between? Seems fruitless.

haha love this! My marriage is pretty equal. We both work, I go to school. He cooks, I clean. He cooks mainly bc I seem to always catch the oven mitt on fire with our gas stove LOL. We both do lawn work. He pays about 70% of the time, opens doors and does all the chivalrous stuff that I love. I take care of the dog. We each manage our own finances, but his debt is a little out of control haha. I would love to not have a job, and just be a little housewife. But I believe in equality of the sexes, and that would be really unfair to my husband. We each do our own part to manage the household. It's a partnership, running a household, and that's the way it needs to be.

I will always offer to pay my half on the first date but if you actually let me pay, there will NEVER be a second date. Please, be a gentleman and pick up the tab. Hold my door open and stand back as I walk through. All these little things make me feel like the lady that I am. I don't mind paying every once in a while once we are dating but the man should definitely pay for the first date.

So why would you even offer? I don't see the point in testing someone so early in the game. Like I said before, if I was a guy I would think she's offering cause she's trying to be nice and doesn't want a second date. I've offered to pay for my half on bad dates actually in the past and that's only cause I never wanna see the guy again but i don't want to be mean and take his money knowing that.