Bara_no_Hime:

boots:
Subject is more or less in the title. This one is for ladies who go on dates with guys - whether casually or as part of your relationship. Do you expect the guy to pay for the meal/cinema tickets/rowboat rental fee, or do you prefer a different arrangement?
So chances are if you are out on a date and you're not sure what your date prefers, the best bet is to just split the bill.

For first dates, split, definitely. You don't want to go in with a sense of obligation.

Actually, not split - each pays for what they bought. Some people want to "split" the bill exactly down the middle even if they got something more expensive than I did, and fuck that. If I got a salad and a water, I want to pay for a fucking salad and water.

Ahem.

Once dating is established, taking turns is easier.

Call me old-fashioned, but I would have thought paying was up to whoever asked who out. Of course once you have a joint account, the issue is moot.

Cause by then getting laid is a given. :3

Lieju:
Maybe it's just the people I hang out with, where 'feminism' is defined as advocating equality. I am aware there are different definitions, though, so I gave mine. And when anyone attacks any 'ism' they should do the same.

And usually you should just discuss the issue at hand.

I generally avoid the topic of feminism entirely, even when discussing gender issues. It's not worth sticking your foot into the quagmire.

For example, I consider offering to pay for a date a question of manners more than of chivalry. I'll offer, and the lady is welcome to accept, but she isn't required to and I won't be offended if she insists on splitting. From the poll here, it seems that a lot of ladies would instead offer to split the bill, which is fine - to me, it's more about making the offer to pay than actually paying. In my experience, we end up paying for ourselves most of the time - in fact, the only long-term girlfriend I've had tended to foot the bill more often than I did, just because she had more money on hand.

No, I never expect the guy I'm dating to pay for the full bill. I actually prefer to split the bill since otherwise it feels like I'm mooching off of them, the only time I ever really give in is if he's particularly insistent about treating me.

I'm kind of the same way with gifts. Whenever the guy I'm dating buys me a gift I feel almost obligated to get him one in return. Not exactly healthy but once again, I don't like to feel as if I'm mooching off of someone.

bastardofmelbourne:

Lieju:
Maybe it's just the people I hang out with, where 'feminism' is defined as advocating equality. I am aware there are different definitions, though, so I gave mine. And when anyone attacks any 'ism' they should do the same.

And usually you should just discuss the issue at hand.

I generally avoid the topic of feminism entirely, even when discussing gender issues. It's not worth sticking your foot into the quagmire.

For example, I consider offering to pay for a date a question of manners more than of chivalry. I'll offer, and the lady is welcome to accept, but she isn't required to and I won't be offended if she insists on splitting. From the poll here, it seems that a lot of ladies would instead offer to split the bill, which is fine - to me, it's more about making the offer to pay than actually paying. In my experience, we end up paying for ourselves most of the time - in fact, the only long-term girlfriend I've had tended to foot the bill more often than I did, just because she had more money on hand.

And that's fine. It only becomes a problem if there's an expectation in the society in general for the man to pay, and if the men feel oblicated to pay just because they're men.

Question. Do you offer to pay if you're out with a man? (a friend or something like that)

Lieju:
Question. Do you offer to pay if you're out with a man? (a friend or something like that)

I don't take guys out to dinner very often, so I don't have many examples to work from :P But yes, I have offered to pay for friend's meals or drinks, especially if I was the one who suggested going out. Guys shout each other rounds all the time.

Interestingly, though, I can only remember doing it with acquaintances rather than close friends - offering to pay, that is. I think that's because I don't have to be polite to close friends because I know them well enough not to offend them.

Well, I'm married and a stay at home mom, so they means he paid for the last three dates. Cause I don't make any money.

I wouldn't like the guy paying for my meal.
Because for the men that haven't developed properly mentally, they take it as a sign that I somehow "owe" them something for it. Nope nope nope.
It also implies that I am unable to take care of myself :/ I have a job tyvm.

Maybe if it's my birthday or we're celebrating an accomplishment of mine? Because then it's like a present, and who pays for their own present?

But I'd pay for my figurative (SINCE I'VE NEVER DATED EVEN THOUGH I'M ALMOST 23 I DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH THIS SORT OF THING) boyfriend's stuff if the situation was reversed.
Also I'm an idiot and I hit the "I prefer to pay" instead of "split the bill". Because reading comprehension apparently doesn't exist for me. *sigh*

Before you read my post, please do not quote me out of context. It's all meant as a bigger picture, not something to be picked apart and misconstrued as an argument for sexism or bigotry.

As a male, I always pay for dinner when I'm on a date with women, if my situation permits it.

I have trouble with a woman paying for dinner in a romantic situation, because it's usually a sign that she's not interested. Bear in mind that the people I date and I are around 30 and therefore a bit older than the audience here. It's safe to say that we're already a bit behind the times. I can only imagine how older people might be struggling with how things have changed.

In a situation with friends, gender doesn't matter, either it's round robin or whoever is in the best financial situation.

I don't think this is out of any subconscious sexist behaviour, I have long since accepted that my female peers are capable people who are responsible for their own situation, as well as the fact that many of them are significantly more intelligent/knowledgable than I am(based on fact and circumstancial evidence, not an inferiority complex or anything like that).

The reason that I pay for dates is because I invited the person in question and to appear confident. This can easily be mistaken for someone who wants to be in a superior situation, but it's a very important distinction and not based on gender.
On the other hand, there is no problem letting a woman feel feminine and taken care of, especially strong women want to relax once in a while and just let the date take care of things. Just like men do.

In a sociological situation, it's important to appear confident, self-sufficient, thoughtful and capable of taking charge in the situation.
I'm not sure how accurate that is in general for people in their young 20's, but this is not only expected, but generally required for people my age and older, I expect. It's simply a matter of first impressions and human nature, that your potential partner is a keeper.
This is typically a preconception of men that is fostered by both genders and one that is often brought up in casual conversation, but not many realize how bound men are by this.

In practice, there is almost no room for sensitive, insecure men and while insecure women face their challenges as well, it's generally harder for men to get out of that situation and find a partner.

lacktheknack:
I haven't dated (;_______;) but I imagine it will depend on what she wants.

Not sure how to approach it, though. Can the more romantically experienced Escapists help a brother who may be in need... one day?

Same. Never had a girlfriend or dated.

However, if this somehow would come to pass in a very unlikely hypothethical situation, I would probably prefer to 50/50.

Well, a disclaimer of my own; I'm not trying to antagonize you, but we seem to be worlds apart on this...or maybe just in our perspective of the same thing. So do not view my post as hostile, even if it might be a little confrontational.

Oh, and for the record, I'm 30 myself.

Smilomaniac:

I have trouble with a woman paying for dinner in a romantic situation, because it's usually a sign that she's not interested. Bear in mind that the people I date and I are around 30 and therefore a bit older than the audience here. It's safe to say that we're already a bit behind the times. I can only imagine how older people might be struggling with how things have changed.

I'm not sure it's an age thing, you know. It seems to be more a "people you hang out with" thing. But I personally prefer to be a bit more, hmm, either creative or unconventional with dates, dinner out is just so...I don't know, bland.

I don't think this is out of any subconscious sexist behaviour, I have long since accepted that my female peers are capable people who are responsible for their own situation, as well as the fact that many of them are significantly more intelligent/knowledgable than I am(based on fact and circumstancial evidence, not an inferiority complex or anything like that).

If you treat women differently than men just because they're women, that's the textbook definition of sexism. Note that sexism is not necessarily bigoted - it just means differentiating based on gender.

The reason that I pay for dates is because I invited the person in question and to appear confident. This can easily be mistaken for someone who wants to be in a superior situation, but it's a very important distinction and not based on gender.

Because you invited? That's okay logic. To appear confident? Well, now I have an inherent dislike for that word because it doesn't seem anyone can agree on what it means anyway...nor is it a universal trait.

On the other hand, there is no problem letting a woman feel feminine and taken care of, especially strong women want to relax once in a while and just let the date take care of things. Just like men do.

Again, linking "feminine" and "taken care of" comes across as slightly sexist, and in contrast to what you said a little earlier.

Or rather, let me ask it this way. When you said "I have long since accepted that my female peers are capable people who are responsible for their own situation, as well as the fact that many of them are significantly more intelligent/knowledgeable than I am" would you describe that as those women being "masculine"?

In a sociological situation, it's important to appear confident, self-sufficient, thoughtful and capable of taking charge in the situation.

Not universal. I can easily "take charge" at work when things get iffy, but "playing the game"? Suffice to say that "disinterest" often seems to be mistaken for "lack of confidence".

I'm not sure how accurate that is in general for people in their young 20's, but this is not only expected, but generally required for people my age and older, I expect. It's simply a matter of first impressions and human nature, that your potential partner is a keeper.

What's required is that there's a fundamental understanding, honesty, trust and compromise. A relationship is greater than the sum of the persons participating in it, and there's no cookie-cutter checklist of "things absolutely required in a relationship" past honesty and trust.

This is typically a preconception of men that is fostered by both genders and one that is often brought up in casual conversation, but not many realize how bound men are by this.

Woe on those of us who prefer to think with our own heads, huh...

In practice, there is almost no room for sensitive, insecure men and while insecure women face their challenges as well, it's generally harder for men to get out of that situation and find a partner.

You'd be surprised.

Vegosiux:
Well, a disclaimer of my own; I'm not trying to antagonize you, but we seem to be worlds apart on this...or maybe just in our perspective of the same thing. So do not view my post as hostile, even if it might be a little confrontational.

I really can't see it as anything else but a someone picking apart what I said as well as taking some of it out of context.
It's fine if you disagree, but you haven't given me anything to respond to other than "nuh-uh".

If you don't think it's antagonizing or hostile, then I recommend you re-read your reply.
Feel free to try again.

Smilomaniac:

I really can't see it as anything else but a someone picking apart what I said as well as taking some of it out of context.
It's fine if you disagree, but you haven't given me anything to respond to other than "nuh-uh".

If you don't think it's antagonizing or hostile, then I recommend you re-read your reply.
Feel free to try again.

Oh for cryin' out loud, put some effort into the discussion, will ya?

If you are offended to have your post challenged, I can't do much. "Picking it apart"? I like to address posts point-by-point. If that style offends you, I suppose I could offer genuine apologies, but I will not change it just for your sake.

I'm not going to have terms of discussion forced on me - either you answer the points I made and questions I asked, or you don't, your choice, and quit trying to shove the responsibility of having made the choice not to do so on me.

Getting all worked up over how I replied to you is not adding anything of relevance to the discussion, and it generally comes across as if you're not interested in discussion, but validation.

Vegosiux:
*

It seems we have nothing to discuss.