Hint: all of them.
IME, probably not. There ARE men out there who think it is their job to pay for female friends they are not sexually interested in. I once was going out with this guy who paid for dinner, dates, etc. for awhile. Then I found out through a third party that he didn’t think we were dating at all. In fact, he considered me undateable, unfuckable, etc. because I wasn’t Lutheran. He just paid for all his female friends when they went places because he thought it was his duty as a good Christian man. All this was a big surprise to me, because I barely even knew he was religious from his outward behavior.
If a guy is socially awkward or has strong old-fashioned and/or religious values, his paying behavior is harder to interpret.
I subscribe to the “If you ask someone out, you should pay” school of thought.
But, with that said, I’d hope that women wouldn’t immediately think too poorly of someone who offers to split the check. I’ve heard enough horror stories of women who were mortally offended by the idea of the man paying that it may be that a man offers to split the check is a man once burned by a previous hyper-offended date. In other words, he might just think that “that’s how it’s done” in these modern days of correctness and equality.
I moved from Seattle to Atlanta - quite a culture shock. I didn’t much like Atlanta, but I worked at it. I finally came up with 3 things I could say that were quite nice about being there:[ol]
[li]Wisteria grows like a weed[/li][li]an artist called R Land[/li][li]Boys pay[/li][/ol]
If it’s a first date, I almost always would let them pay, without even trying to split the bill. A nice guy would hope for a handshake or a hug on the first date, possibly a kiss on the cheek. A racy guy might hope for a full-on kiss. If things went well.
If I knew he didn’t have a bunch of money, I’d start suggesting that we go to less expensive restaurants, or cook at home. I would pick up lunches, sometimes with a struggle, and sometimes movie tickets. Again, less money = movie at home.
This mostly went for male friends as well. I would always offer to split the bill, usually they would wave it off. Because boys pay. The only absolute exception is work lunches - I worked for the gub’ment.
Boys hold the door - they train them early. They even train the disabled ones to hold the door for a woman. I’ve seen it. Boys pump gas. Boys carry heavy things. Boys drive, because they picked you up. Boys walk you home. And boys pay the bill. Boys pay the bill even if they don’t know you and their stoned friend invited you out but it turns out he has no money. Because that’s the way it is.
The best way to show a guy that you are really, really not interested is to always split the bill no matter what, not let him see you home, and if he does anyway on the third date stand two feet back and shake his hand. Worked for me, anyway.
That’s the only place I’ve ever been where the rules were that clear. But they were crystal clear - and payment for dinner had nothing to do with sex later. It was all about tradition and acting like a gentleman. A gentleman who treats a lady like a lady. They start brainwashing them early down there.
Hi. Before I reply to this particular post as well as others, might I make something starkly clear. She’s an old college friend, she’s about 45 and I think she’s insane re: this attitude.
So. Jophie. It is exactly your post that made me OP this. In this post-post-retro-post Feminist world we live in, what ARE the parameters?? What would not offend? What would?
From the posts so far, it’s a regional and personal thing. I think the thing that most dismayed me about the attitude my friend had was the inflexible nature of it. Posters in here mention cash flow and going back and forth, sometimes pay, sometimes it’s fine to share, or have him pay, etc.
I would love to think that the only consistent thing would be a hightened awareness of how I am feeling about sitting 3 feet from that person. And, how might she be feeling about sitting 3 feet from me. The rest of the details, unfortunately, could mire an otherwise splendid start in a sticky wicky of disappointment and missed cues.
Couple questions; why would it even get to a third date were you not interested in him?
Secondly, I find your “split the bill no matter what” to show disinterest intriguing…have you heard of other women doing this? I mean, is this an understood part of dating? I ask, because I went out with a girl twice, but she was pretty adamant about paying for her half (or at least making up for it in some way, such as covering the next event). Is that usually a bad sign?
Speaking only for myself, I always split the bill unless it was a special treat, like a birthday or he was just in the mood to pay, which I would reciprocate at some other time. I cannot understand why some people insist on using this as some sort of coded message about interest level. I wouldn’t go out on 3 dates with someone if I weren’t interested in him. I also would never assume one party on the date is obliged to pay more frequently than the other, strictly based on gender.
AFAIK, it’s not an established dating practice. Everyone has different expectations. Don’t assume it means she doesn’t like you. And if she does, it’s a ridiculous bit of gamesmanship for her to inform you in this oblique way.
Add me to the ‘Whoever asks, pays’ group. Which explains why the idea that the guy always pays is so prevalent- there are still women who won’t ask guys out and guys who think it’s too forward. The asker also gets to select the restaurant, including the price range. If it’s a first date, chances are ‘he’ may be trying to impress her with a fancy meal, and won’t be able to gauge ‘her’ finances that well, so expecting her to pay half of a $300 meal would be downright rude.
a) Deferring “who pays for dinner” off on “well, who asked?” just brings up the next logical question: Doing the asking out for dinner on a first date. Rules?
If the consensus is that “the guy does”, we’re back to “the guy pays”.
b) I can’t conceive of ever ending up eating dinner across from someone for purposes of entertaining the possibility of partnering without having first had some interesting intellectual conversations about sex roles, expectations, feminism, etc, to the point that I’d know in advance what her thoughts are on “dates” (what are they? does she consider herself to be a person who does “date”, or is that a construct she stands on the outside of, weaving a different anti-date alternative?), not to mention paying for them. Usually that kind of conversation is going to occur via email long before we meet in person.
c) I can afford to treat someone to dinner. I have a distaste for conventional sex roles, especially with regards to courtship & flirting, so in the absence of such a conversation my default would be to split the check. Anyone who finds that a good reason to assume “this isn’t going anywhere” has been effectively filtered out as a waste of my time, a self-screening process, if you will.
But what if you’re one of those wild and crazy folks who dates people he or she actually physically encounters out in the wild?
I really hate the idea of having to pay as a guy. I thought womyn were supposed to be liberated these days? Sure, whoever asks pay, but women rarely ask men out. And if they do it’s usually because they don’t think they have a chance. I’ve only been asked out by girls who are usually not my type at all.
So yeah I think it’s BS that the “whoever asks has to pay” rule is in effect, because it is based on the incorrect assumption that it’s a two-way street. Men always ask out women. Almost always at least. So I think it’s only fair to split the bill. It obviously depends on the situation. I just wish women were more assertive about splitting the bill these days.
All men fall into category 1. Look, a guy is not on a date with you because he’s not interested in sex.
Here are my thoughts on the three options:
-
Guy pays - This is the traditional model. The woman makes an offer to not appear to be a golddigger, but the guys insists on paying. It is a DATE after all.
-
Dutch (split payment) - No. This now establishes you as a couple of friends out for dinner. Not where you want to be.
-
Girl pays - This is a good way to establish your dominant male position. You don’t need to supplicate women to get them to sleep with you. Tell her “hey babe, take care of the bill while I go pull the Jag around.”
[QUOTE=MerkwurdigliebeSure, whoever asks pay, but women rarely ask men out. And if they do it’s usually because they don’t think they have a chance. [/QUOTE]
Perhaps attitudes like this reinforce this lack of assertiveness.
I’ve met my fair share of guys who appreciate feminism and going dutch and powerful women in theory, but when it comes down to it they’re still uncomfortable with women doing the asking, whether it’s out to dinner or for sex.
I’m with the whoever asks pays, but the few times I’ve gone on dates I carried money to cover myself and did offer to pay my share but was waved off. It would be rather gauche to arm wrestle over the bill…
However, once established I expect some give and take. I dislike being the one who pays all the time also (first boyfriend, should’ve realized something was wrong when I was the one who always paid… for concerts, for supper, etc) and don’t expect the guy to pay all the time.
Judging by this thread, I can tell my views on this aren’t universal, but here goes anyway. Splitting a check is weird. I can’t imagine offering to split a check. I’d also look at a guy sideways if he asked me to split. I’d much rather him let me pay for the whole thing.
To me, the main purpose of a first date is for two people to get together to figure out whether they like each other well enough to have another date. The date also provides an opportunity for both parties to impress each other by showing off their best sides. This means looking good, demonstrating strong conversational skills, and being charming and witty. Also, the dates provide a venue for courtship and displays of generosity.
I always offer to pay, even if the guy asked me out. My offers are sincere and I would not be bothered if he took me up on this offer. When I offer I’m silently expressing “it’s my pleasure to pay for your meal”. Most guys flat out refuse to let me pay, and I don’t fight with them over it. But at least they know that I’m cool enough to treat them and I don’t expect to be catered to all the time.
But if I were to offer to split, I’m not sending a message of free-spirited generosity. I’m sending the message of “what’s mine is mine; what’s yours is yours”. If a guy offered to split the check with me, he’d be implicitly sending the same message, whether that’s the look he’s going for or not. Then I’d be stuck wondering if that was how the rest of the relationship was going to be like. I’d feel this way even if I made the move towards the bill first and he stopped me. The thing he should say is “Let me get that, sweetheart, for your money is no good tonight.” Not, “Wanna go half?” This of course is just my opinion, of course.
So I think this is the thing: Either the guy pays. Or the woman pays. Going dutch does have an aura of cheapness to it.
Charlatan !!!
Yeah, that’s bizarre to me also.
I’m a guy, and on dates, I pay. Seems to cut down on the akwardness, and I can’t stand splitting checks. I often also pay when out with friends or even collegues - it’s just so much less hassle. If my job changes and I can’t afford to do it anymore, I won’t - but 'till then it keeps things simple.
One exception: a few years ago, a second date she asked for. We’re eating at the bar, and she *really * hits it off with the bartender, to the point that she and I maybe exchanged 2 sentences during the entire meal. So the moment I was done with the meal, I said “thank you for an interesting evening” turned around and walked out. Got 1 voicemail and 2 emails about “sticking her with the check”, but felt no need to respond.
Man. I had this amazing post all written out about this. I showed myself to be a hero among women, wronged by the world, you would have bent down to kiss my feet in apology for ever doubting my better nature … then the cat walked across the laptop and it went into perma-freeze.
Basically I was taking one situation with major mixed messages and turning it into some kind of dating rule. My bad.
In retrospect it seems clear that he wanted our three dinners to be dates, I thought we were just friends hanging out. Whenever the bill came I offered to split (like I always do, and am almost always waved off in Atlanta). He always accepted - enhancing my friends hanging out theory.
By the time I bought a clue, I was in over my head. Nice guy, but no chemistry. I’m too oblivious for the friends-to-date thing to work. And I have no idea how to answer the unasked question, when the answer is no. So I sometimes wind up with guys I like but don’t **like **hanging around.
It’s not all my fault. By the time you hit 40, if you thinks it’s a date you should say so. Or ask. Male or female equally.
So that’s the story.
What do you do with your friends? If I offer to take them out, I pay. If we make a date to go out, we split. I’m not sure why romantic interest would alter that drastically, esp. if you are an independent woman not testing a man out to see if he can afford to date you.
So paying for things is your best side that you want to be sure you show? The side of me that I want to show by going dutch is that I don’t expect a man to pay for everything, because I don’t and I won’t allow it. It’s not cheapness; it’s drawing boundaries. I would let him pay the first time if he insisted, but if there was a second date, I’d insist on paying. That’s how I roll.
Honestly, I don’t think they “know” that, because you let them insist. They think that you, like every other woman, make an offer to pay that she knows will be refused. It’s a nice token gesture, but it’s not a real offer. Maybe from you it is (I know it is from me), but on a first date, they have no way of knowing this.
If you want to send a message, call Western Union. If you want to pay the bill, pay it. If you want to split it, split it. Offering to pay =/= paying. And as this thread has shown, the “message” is by no means going to be received as transmitted, which is why it’s a bad risk to take symbolic actions hoping that people can glean something from it before they even know you.
That’d be your interpretation. That does not mean that’s the message he meant to send. All these assumptions are dangerous. You might miss out on a great guy because you decided his actions meant something they didn’t.
Couldn’t disagree more, but I bet you figured that out by now.