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

The way I see it is like this: I was raised with my step dad holding doors, walking on the "car side" of a sidewalk, paying for meals (out of their joint account), and doing all the "manly things" for my mother.

So, I expect that. If the person I'm with isn't that way, then we're not meant for each other. My fiancé lives up to most of those things, except for the manly stuff - but he makes up for that in other ways.

Call me old fashioned or whatever, but I like me an "old fashion gentlemen."

I was taught all of that stuff too. But it just didn't sink in because it was always my nature to look for logic behind the things we do and if I see none I don't do it. I don't understand the concepts of holding doors open or walking on the car side because they don't seem logical to me. I don't see any real method behind them. When I walk I walk slightly behind, not alongside, because it allows me to see them without making eye contact. I have issues with making eye contact.

Holding the door open: Simply being polite (I do this for everyone)
Walking on the car side: My step dad explained it as, "If a car is going to swerve off the road onto the side-walk, the woman will have a better chance because it'll hit him first." It seemed kind of romantic to me, he's standing in her line of fire.

Ok...just one question. What if You've invited the other person out and know they don't have any form of income therefore no cash to contribute towards a number of "dates" ...until they've got a job obviously. What would the the person inviting, think?

Just having a discussion with a friend on this topic. A persons circumstances can have an influence I think. Or would people just write the date and potential relationship off as a no-goer?

I've already given my thoughts on this one - we just want to put it out there. :-)

For me? I wouldn't care if she had no income at all. Her income, whether greater, or lesser than my own...has no impact on whether she is datable or not. Unless it impacts her personality of course.

Clarification on "impacting her personality". Obviously if they turned out to be an absolute free for all then yeah we get that in the sense it's just taking the Michael. No one likes that.

That must be a cultural term lol.

What I meant was...if she's got money, and shoves it in your face, expects incredibly extravagant things (gifts, dates, etc) in order to 'keep' her...that's an example of her personality being impacted by her (higher) income.

Conversely, if she's incredibly uncomfortable (and I mean excessively...to the point of moodiness) accepting things that you do for her, doesn't want to go do things, or begins to just outright expect extra because you've given up to a certain point...then that would be an example of her personality being impacted by her (lower) income.

In discussing this thread on my page, two very wonderful women mentioned ways that income wouldn't be an issue. One works in the science field (read, higher income than my own), and the other is a student who works in the arts (probably a lower income than my own). I hope they don't mind...but I'm going to quote them here:

Higher income:

Maybe Im an ****** for this (and other things lol). I always offer to pay. If the guy takes me up on it there is NO second date. If he pays for the first couple of dates I will insist on taking him out to someplace pricey enough to make him think ' wow she likes me'..but not too pricey that he thinks I am rubbing my income in his face.

This shows class, appreciation, and tact...all of which I very much respect. It also shows a sense of her own worth, which I find attractive as a trait in general.

Lower income:

I like my first dates to be free anyway... there's plenty of excellent stuff to do that doesn't cost a penny and actually gives you a chance to get to know the person.

Again, this shows character, creativity, and quite a few other positive traits...and is something I would also find attractive without hesitation.

So there you have some positive personality traits, regardless of income, and negative ones...directly as a result of income.

The way I see it is like this: I was raised with my step dad holding doors, walking on the "car side" of a sidewalk, paying for meals (out of their joint account), and doing all the "manly things" for my mother.

So, I expect that. If the person I'm with isn't that way, then we're not meant for each other. My fiancé lives up to most of those things, except for the manly stuff - but he makes up for that in other ways.

Call me old fashioned or whatever, but I like me an "old fashion gentlemen."

I was taught all of that stuff too. But it just didn't sink in because it was always my nature to look for logic behind the things we do and if I see none I don't do it. I don't understand the concepts of holding doors open or walking on the car side because they don't seem logical to me. I don't see any real method behind them. When I walk I walk slightly behind, not alongside, because it allows me to see them without making eye contact. I have issues with making eye contact.

Holding the door open: Simply being polite (I do this for everyone)
Walking on the car side: My step dad explained it as, "If a car is going to swerve off the road onto the side-walk, the woman will have a better chance because it'll hit him first." It seemed kind of romantic to me, he's standing in her line of fire.

The woman being on the inside on the sidewalk and the guy on the outside actually stems from some cultures where if the woman is on the outside its making a statement that she is for sale so the man puts the woman on the inside so others know she isn't a *kitten* and it had nothing to do with protection (some cultures still practice this) but now its a tradition that has been rationalized as a gesture of protection.

The way I see it is like this: I was raised with my step dad holding doors, walking on the "car side" of a sidewalk, paying for meals (out of their joint account), and doing all the "manly things" for my mother.

So, I expect that. If the person I'm with isn't that way, then we're not meant for each other. My fiancé lives up to most of those things, except for the manly stuff - but he makes up for that in other ways.

Call me old fashioned or whatever, but I like me an "old fashion gentlemen."

I was taught all of that stuff too. But it just didn't sink in because it was always my nature to look for logic behind the things we do and if I see none I don't do it. I don't understand the concepts of holding doors open or walking on the car side because they don't seem logical to me. I don't see any real method behind them. When I walk I walk slightly behind, not alongside, because it allows me to see them without making eye contact. I have issues with making eye contact.

Holding the door open: Simply being polite (I do this for everyone)
Walking on the car side: My step dad explained it as, "If a car is going to swerve off the road onto the side-walk, the woman will have a better chance because it'll hit him first." It seemed kind of romantic to me, he's standing in her line of fire.

The woman being on the inside on the sidewalk and the guy on the outside actually stems from some cultures where if the woman is on the outside its making a statement that she is for sale so the man puts the woman on the inside so others know she isn't a *kitten* and it had nothing to do with protection (some cultures still practice this) but now its a tradition that has been rationalized as a gesture of protection.

The way I see it is like this: I was raised with my step dad holding doors, walking on the "car side" of a sidewalk, paying for meals (out of their joint account), and doing all the "manly things" for my mother.

So, I expect that. If the person I'm with isn't that way, then we're not meant for each other. My fiancé lives up to most of those things, except for the manly stuff - but he makes up for that in other ways.

Call me old fashioned or whatever, but I like me an "old fashion gentlemen."

I was taught all of that stuff too. But it just didn't sink in because it was always my nature to look for logic behind the things we do and if I see none I don't do it. I don't understand the concepts of holding doors open or walking on the car side because they don't seem logical to me. I don't see any real method behind them. When I walk I walk slightly behind, not alongside, because it allows me to see them without making eye contact. I have issues with making eye contact.

Holding the door open: Simply being polite (I do this for everyone)
Walking on the car side: My step dad explained it as, "If a car is going to swerve off the road onto the side-walk, the woman will have a better chance because it'll hit him first." It seemed kind of romantic to me, he's standing in her line of fire.

The woman being on the inside on the sidewalk and the guy on the outside actually stems from some cultures where if the woman is on the outside its making a statement that she is for sale so the man puts the woman on the inside so others know she isn't a *kitten* and it had nothing to do with protection (some cultures still practice this) but now its a tradition that has been rationalized as a gesture of protection.

I've never heard of this before. I've heard of the protecting a women from traffic, protecting women from dirt or anything splattering when there were horse carriages. I've even heard the one where men did it when they wore swords on their left hip so it kept their right side free when they needed to draw it.

In the times when there were no cars, no sides walks, just regular dirt walk ways so technically people can walk right in the middle of said "street" why would keeping your women at any side even matter? I'm also curious what cultures currently practice it.

Not saying you made it up btw, its just the first time I'm ever hearing it.

I don't think she personally made it up either. I think it's feminist propaganda. I've heard too much crap like that as arguments in discussions, yet when questioned...there's no factual basis, and it comes out that her 'women's group' were the culprits.

The way I see it is like this: I was raised with my step dad holding doors, walking on the "car side" of a sidewalk, paying for meals (out of their joint account), and doing all the "manly things" for my mother.

So, I expect that. If the person I'm with isn't that way, then we're not meant for each other. My fiancé lives up to most of those things, except for the manly stuff - but he makes up for that in other ways.

Call me old fashioned or whatever, but I like me an "old fashion gentlemen."

I was taught all of that stuff too. But it just didn't sink in because it was always my nature to look for logic behind the things we do and if I see none I don't do it. I don't understand the concepts of holding doors open or walking on the car side because they don't seem logical to me. I don't see any real method behind them. When I walk I walk slightly behind, not alongside, because it allows me to see them without making eye contact. I have issues with making eye contact.

Holding the door open: Simply being polite (I do this for everyone)
Walking on the car side: My step dad explained it as, "If a car is going to swerve off the road onto the side-walk, the woman will have a better chance because it'll hit him first." It seemed kind of romantic to me, he's standing in her line of fire.

The woman being on the inside on the sidewalk and the guy on the outside actually stems from some cultures where if the woman is on the outside its making a statement that she is for sale so the man puts the woman on the inside so others know she isn't a *kitten* and it had nothing to do with protection (some cultures still practice this) but now its a tradition that has been rationalized as a gesture of protection.

I pay.

Why, because no matter what society says about equal this or any other crap. I am a man. I do not need your permission to be a man. I will not have you dictate to me how to be a man. If you do not wish a second date, that is fine. The first date is to see if we both qualify for a second date.

Now, if we have been together for a long time, and we go out and you wish to pay.......
I will still pay. Because I am a man. I do not need your permission to be a man. etc.

Amen!!

You and I would get along very well lol. Unfortunately though, with the direction this thread has turned (and no one's going to go back and read 20 pages of it.../sigh!), we're going to start hearing big words like 'misogynistic', 'cis-normative', and 'patriarchal' to describe responses like that.

Maybe the best response is just to stand there and repeat:

I am a man. I do not need your permission to be a man. I will not have you dictate to me how to be a man.

Lol.