Paying for drinks/dates

[Riviera Paradise]

One way to guide the conversation is to grab the check & ask: "May I get this one?" If she is OK with it, then end of discussion.
If she decides to pursue the topic, then simply state that you once went out with a "friend" who got bent out-of-shape because you thought you were being polite by offering to pay, but she interpreted it as you were buying her company. That should put things in perspective for her. You describe her as nothing more than as either a friend or someone you once knew, and that will end that topic...onto other things...

 

[vitor]

I am a bit diffrient in that I will spend a little bit of cash. Usally on a 2nd date with a girl we goto a nice restaurant that I like. I will spend 50-100$ it is not neccessarly to impress her but I like nice meals, nice wine, and nice things. I usally try to eat somewhere new, exciting, and that I have heard about. I also build up the place how I have heard so much about it etc. I think Tapas and Wine places are great. Lots of little appitizers, and good wine, nice music and ambiance. These are places I want to check out and would goto any ways but would not take my boys etc... Usally after this date I am in if I have done everything right. TO each his own, but I always pay until we start having sex. A common trick I do is the guess the bill game. After a few dates I will bet her a back massage that I will guess the bill closer than her. After you play this game a few times loser buys dinner, and you are set, its fun, you should win...

These women are like mini-investments ..

 

[STR8UP]

Lots of good stuff here. Couple of points-

1) This is why you should try to avoid "dating"

2) There is no right or wrong answer to this question

Unfortunately dating customs are so ingrained into society that unless you are able to set the frame to your advantage you are sometimes at the mercy of HER expectations of how it should go down ALONG WITH HER FRIENDS EXPECTATIONS.

The trick is to do everything on YOUR terms and to make sure that the woman isn't taking advantage of you. I could spend big $$$$ on a nice dinner for one chick and feel like I came out a winner yet feel like a complete TOOL for buying the next one a McChicken salad.

As with so many things, it's all about context, not content.

The thing to remember is that if you feel like you are being hosed, you probably are.

 

[reset]

I could spend big $$$$ on a nice dinner for one chick and feel like I came out a winner yet feel like a complete TOOL for buying the next one a McChicken salad.

That actually makes a lot of sense.

The point about their friends too. Do women's friends actually walk them through their dates? Seems like it. You tell a girl something and then later she tells you what her girlfriend thought about what you said as if she was there. You're really dating all her friends. I don't really want to think about that part.

 

[edger]

I believe in going Dutch...she pays her end, I pay mine. What's fair is fair. Who the hell is she that "I" have to pay for the date?? If you wanna blame anybody, the first who should be blamed, is MEN. Because men have always catered to women. And as a result, women have developed an "entitlement" attitude that "the guy must pay on dates". Men have badly spoiled women beyond repair(in all aspects). Men are stupid, they are their own worst enemies in this game. Women should be blamed for this too, because they're taking advantage of men, and they know it. They really know the right thing to do, is, to offer to pay, but they don't, because they take advantage. I mean, don't get me wrong either, some women really believe too(because it's so ingrained in our culture), that this is the correct way to go about things.

 

[jophil28]

That actually makes a lot of sense.

The point about their friends too. Do women's friends actually walk them through their dates? Seems like it. You tell a girl something and then later she tells you what her girlfriend thought about what you said as if she was there. You're really dating all her friends. I don't really want to think about that part.

All women (to my knowledge) discuss their next date with a new man with at least one of their girls. The discussion typically runs an hour or more and covers mainly what she already knows about you ( with the G/f muttering motherly warnings ) . Then they discuss what she is planning to wear..that takes at least one half hour of ,"...oooh.. ahh..yes, the Blue skirt with the pink top and those drop earrings..." The G/f often offers to lend her a favorite outfit at this time.
Then a short discussion about WHERE he is taking her, and then,finally, the G/f extracts the promise of a next morning Field Report.

THe FR is obligatory in girl land. Ever tiny detail of what happened on the date is then examined for nuance.
His every motion and gesture and suggestion is scrutinized for 'hidden meanings' and so on....

Yes, you are in relationship by proxy with her G/fs, and sometimes her sisters. long before you meet them.

And that is how women do dating in the first few months.

Gentlemen, you all are freakin' famous.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I believe in going Dutch...she pays her end, I pay mine. What's fair is fair. Who the hell is she that "I" have to pay for the date?? If you wanna blame anybody, the first who should be blamed, is MEN....

I can understand your position EDGER, but know that in your POV you're falling prey to exactly the same feminized mindset that you're railing against. How so? Because whether you're aware of it or not, your post here indicates you subscribe to a basic tenet of modern feminization - egalitarian equality amongst the genders.

Traditional gender roles used to be based on a complimentary ideology, meaning that each sex followed different, though complimentary, models. A man was respected as the decision maker of the home and the woman was responsible for nurturing and wellbeing of that household. No one role was above the other, but both were separate and respected. Today however, due to the pervasive influence of feminization (not to be confused with feminism), a new gender model has become accepted and this is called the egalitarian model. This model is one of total equitability in gender roles without the differentiation of male or female roles. This is a flat-line equality which ignores the inherent strengths and weaknesses of each gender in favor of presuming both can be equally effective in problem solving and meeting relational challenges based on individual personal qualities.

Egalitarianism is defeating; it leaves a vaccuum of power or responsibilities to be filled by either sex in the wrong instances; for instance, expecting a man to possess the equitable feminine qualities he's lacking yet still holding him accountable for them. In other words, if a wife feels her husband is incapable of providing for her and the kids with the decisive, confident security of leadership she will feel compelled to assume the role of the husband and he will be relegated to the role of being the passive, submissive wife. In the egalitarian model this is acceptable, socially reinforced and passed on as learned behavior to their children. And in this generation (and perhaps the one prior) it's not a stretch to assume that contemporary male submissiveness was in fact taught to them by their own parents.

This may seem like I'm being overly analytical, but look at this framework from the perspective of paying for a date / drinks / events etc. from the beginning stages of an LTR or even just spinning a plate. This egalitarian model has filtered into the male social identity to the point that a guy thinks it common place for a woman to initiate and approach him with a date proposition. He thinks it normal for a woman to want to pay the tab, open doors for him, etc. These are traditionally Men's behaviors that AFCs believe women think are empowering and attractive in women.

Your Grandfather never pondered whether he or your then-to-be Grandmother would get the bill; it wasn't even an afterthought. He payed the tab and Grandma was appreciative. And that's what's at issue - appreciation. Feminization has stacked the deck against a guy to the point where he questions a woman's motives. Does she appreciate his generosity or does she feel entitled to it?

 

[jophil28]

Your Grandfather never pondered whether he or your then-to-be Grandmother would get the bill; it wasn't even an afterthought. He payed the tab and Grandma was appreciative. And that's what's at issue - appreciation.

Awww. That ole liberal RT is getting in touch with his traditional side.
Advancing age can do that to a leftie...he he.

 

[Mr. Me]

you will ALWAYS pay for sex in one form or another. That may be buying coffee, drinks, dinner, a concert ticket, a wedding ring or a mortgage payment, but always trust that there is going to be a cost associated with you and sex....

What has worth is worth paying for.

So, you're saying that sex is worth paying for? Hey, a buck seventy five spent on a coffee for sex is a good deal in these tough economic times!

The second POV is the 'Chivalry's not dead' approach. Nothing has served women better over the years than to convince the male populace at large that it's his codified moral obligation to prove his provisioning capacity to her in an effort to achieve her intimacy.

But wasn't chivalry the invention of men?

It seems to me that those men valued behaving in accordance to a "higher road", as it were, a code of conduct and values. This "chivalry" produces a response in women as it appeals to their need to feel protected, safe, comfortable, taken care of. It's the same sense they have in them that makes a woman prefer a taller man because it makes her feel "protected"; all of this is really about having her feeling feminine in the man's company.

A guy guides a woman while walking with her by placing his hand on the small of her back, he offers an arm to step across a curb, he opens the car door for her, whatever, these chivalrous touches silently register with women.

I usually just say "I bought dinner, you're buying the drinks."

I'd rather it come from her then my telling her. I want to see outward demonstrations of her character without my tipping her off as to what I'd like to see. I want to know the truth about her, not help her possibly mask it.

There was a girl I dated last summer, just a handful of dates. One of those dates was to go to my beach. She asks, "What are we gonna do for food?" and I said, "Hey, that's a great idea! Bring something." She did. Not much. Salad and salmon. Anyway, forward to another date, I really wanted to eat out (hadn't done so in a while, I was jonesing for it) so I invited her along. As the check came, she excused herself to go to the bathroom! Didn't offer to pay anything. Never did offer to buy a drink for me, never did offer to buy a dessert, never did offer... anything. Oh sure we had a fun time when we got back to her place, but... I had one more date after that, just to make sure about her nature, and that date had some cheap eats in it. Even so, she just sat there when the check came. I never called her again after that.

So telling her what to do can still keep you with a selfish woman.

I'm out the other night with another girl, without my saying anything, she goes ahead and orders the next round and pays the bartender. Big difference.

I believe in going Dutch...she pays her end, I pay mine. What's fair is fair.

It's not about being "fair". It's about making her feel feminine in your company. You do have to weed out the golddiggers and the women who are just using you to relieve their boredom, but that leaves you with the women that are interested in you, and those are the ones you don't want to project an uptight, miserly persona to.

 

[vitor]

When you drop her off and she calls her girlfriends they are gonna call you a loser for not paying. Some of you will say low interest or some crap but it is the truth. If you have no money then do the cheap coffee dates etc, but if you are ok, do what you know is right..

 

[Nelford]

I don't spend too much for dates. Really, I'm not there to feed her, I'm there to get to know her and see if we are a match. If I do decide to get something to eat I try to keep the tab somewhere between $25-$50. It's more close to that $25 then that $50. I rather go to a place where I spend the least amount of money if possible.

I basically date in stages. First date is a stop at the local coffee house or some sort of outside cafe if it's warm. Second date if I like the girl will be a dinner, movie, etc..Do you see where I'm going with this...

I don't feel uncomfortable if a woman pays. I always get the tip.

What if you go on a date and drop a hundred bucks and by the end of the date you didn't like the girl or she wasn't feeling you. You just waste a hundred bucks to find that out. Now, you have to take the other girl out this weekend coming. Are you going to drop another hundred bucks to see if you two click.

 

[reset]

Gentlemen, you all are freakin' famous.

I guess that could be good or bad.


––––––


I can see why being "chivalrous" (ie paying) could be seen as a man playing his role by being the pursuer, and in that context, it does seem masculine.

But at the same time, doesn't it also set off the provider dynamic?

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

So, you're saying that sex is worth paying for? Hey, a buck seventy five spent on a coffee for sex is a good deal in these tough economic times!

Why stop there when you can surf to free porn sites all day and only pay whatever your ISP charges you monthly? Again, what's worth paying for? The trouble is that initial trial offer payment of a buck seventy five often compounds with interest over time.

But wasn't chivalry the invention of men?

No, but an excellent question. It depends on what's considered 'chivalrous' and that definition has changed throughout history. Bear in mind that what we think of as chivalry today is a bastardization of the initial concept courtesy of hollywood and romanicizations. Also consider that chivalry is a westernized idea that almost exclusively applied to the landed aristocracy of western Europe during the middle ages. The original, latent purpose of chivalry was to hold wealthy men accountable to the holy roman empire and not kill each other or resort to banditry as was common at the time of it's inception.

You're making a very common mistake in associating 'chivalrous' behavior with westernized romanticism. The concept of Courtly Love, what would later be referred to as "Romance", actually began with aristocratic women playing "romantic games" amongst themselves and a series of suitors - generally while their noblemen husbands were away on some military campaign. The contests would be tests of devotion, sometimes writing sonnets or poetry, other times it may've been slowly bleeding to death to prove their affections. Obviously taken to the extreme this had it's downside, but the "games" took root in society and have evolved over the course of history.

I'm not saying being 'chivalrous' doesn't have it's uses, but like any gift or attention, the more a Man applies it the sooner it loses it's appeal. See it for what it's become, and what it began from.

 

[iqqi]

I am amazed at the answers in this thread. Seems like a 180 from what would have been said a year ago. Good job, most of you nailed it perfectly.

Some women will not let you pay for them... I say THOSE are the ones to watch out for and be alarmed by. They are misguided by feminist notions.

 

[Tazman]

I am amazed at the answers in this thread. Seems like a 180 from what would have been said a year ago. Good job, most of you nailed it perfectly.

You've got to be kidding, lol. Every man here who is proud of gaining approval from iqqi raise your hand!!!

 

[piranha45]

quoting her defeats the board's ignore feature, please be more considerate in the future.

 

[jophil28]

But wasn't chivalry the invention of men?

It seems to me that those men valued behaving in accordance to a "higher road", as it were, a code of conduct and values. This "chivalry" produces a response in women as it appeals to their need to feel protected, safe, comfortable, taken care of. It's the same sense they have in them that makes a woman prefer a taller man because it makes her feel "protected"; all of this is really about having her feeling feminine in the man's company.

Indeed it was. And all cultures have their own version of what we call Chivalry.. Chivalry ( in the broadest sense ) was invented by men. Men constructed a code of behavior which was designed to demonstrate " character" to OTHER men. Women's opinion of men was largely irrelevant.
Honor, integrity, endurance, friendship between men, morality,decency and predictibility were seen as the hallmarks of a good man. Some cultures prize this to such a high level that suicide is the accepted sanction for a violation.

A man's reputation amongst other men was highly prized and fiercely guarded.

Somehow, some way, that world has been replaced in the west with self gratification,greed and opportunism.

 

[Jitterbug]

That word was stolen, repackaged and sold to women as if it's always been about women and how their royal arses ought to be treated by men.

 

[STR8UP]

Bear in mind that what we think of as chivalry today is a bastardization of the initial concept courtesy of hollywood and romanicizations. Also consider that chivalry is a westernized idea that almost exclusively applied to the landed aristocracy of western Europe during the middle ages. The original, latent purpose of chivalry was to hold wealthy men accountable to the holy roman empire and not kill each other or resort to banditry as was common at the time of it's inception.

Insightful bit of info Rollo.

Interesting how it always comes back to another group's interests being used to control and manipulate men.

Be careful how you think and act, fellas. Much of the way you see and react to the world is instilled in you by people who do not have your personal best interests in mind.

 

[reset]

Be careful how you think and act, fellas. Much of the way you see and react to the world is instilled in you by people who do not have your personal best interests in mind.

It's amazing how many things we do that we have no clue what the motivation is, we're just "supposed to do that".

Which was the point behind the thread. If I make a decision to do something, I want it to be for my own reasons, because that's the conclusion I came to on my own.

I don't want to appear as the provider who will get used by gold diggers, and I don't want to appear as the guy who refuses to appreciate the people he cares about by being generous. But I do want to understand where my behaviors come from and why I am doing them.