Question for the boys - to pay or not to pay?

pwurple

JeffKenna wrote: »

Oh dear god I can imagine being on a date with you and checking over the bill!

Now that's awkward!!!

Lol, Yeah, I c an safely say we would not be compatible!

I don't have to check the bill, but if I'm not doing it someone has to. Otherwise they are a flippen dope with money. Big red mark.

pwurple

pwurple wrote: »

Lol, Yeah, I c an safely say we would not be compatible!

I don't have to check the bill, but if I'm not doing it someone has to. Otherwise they are a flippen dope with money. Big red mark.

Or good with numbers. I normally know what the bill should come to in restaurants, supermarket and much more. So I often do not check a bill for the sole reason that when the waiting staff / cashier said the total it matched the expectation I already had.

JeffKenna

pwurple wrote: »

Lol, Yeah, I c an safely say we would not be compatible!

I don't have to check the bill, but if I'm not doing it someone has to. Otherwise they are a flippen dope with money. Big red mark.

Apologies, on reflection my earlier post may have come across slightly insulting, it wasn't meant like that!

Haha I must be a flippen dope with money I'm thinking!!!

Alf Veedersane

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

IMHO the only purpose of a €600 handbag is to make those that cannot afford it feel bad as they are no more aesthetically pleasing than a €19.99 model from Dunnes Stores.

I don't know if I'm in the minority but I wouldn't know the difference between one from Dunnes and one that was €600.

Unless if the €600 bags are as gammy as those Louis Vuitton bags.

One word: ugh.

Zulu

When I was single, the way I just to work it was simple: if I ask you out on a date, I'm inviting you to join me. It's my invitation, so I'm paying. You can buy the first round after.

If you ask me, you're paying. I'll get the first round after.

If we (after a few dates) decide to get food, together, then it's 50/50.

OnTheCouch

LordNorbury wrote: »

I think it depends how you feel about one particular trait and that trait is meanness. I would consider any guy who asks a girl out to dinner and then expects her to pay for her meal, as downright mean.

I have a very very low toleration of meanness in people, it's one of two human traits that I cannot stand in people, when I encounter it, so that may account for why I feel the way I do about this subject of who pays for dinner. I believe there is a proper way of going at things and asking a girl out to dinner and then bringing up the bill at the end of the night or asking her to pay for her half, is actually the stuff of complete mortification to me I have to say.

Yeah I'd be like yourself, it's certainly up (down?) there when it comes to my pet hates in others. To such an extent that if I get any inclination at all that someone is a tight you know what, I will have no hesitation in showing him or her up in public as being just that. Which for some reason does not seem to be done more in Ireland, I don't know why. Anyway, this generally works, as with people like this, the only thing they hate more than spending money is being exposed as one of these types in front of people they know.

It is certainly a problem, I am noticing more and more recently (which in fairness can be explained to a large degree by the financial problems we have had in this country in the last few years - but not always) that the majority of people are frugal, if not actually being stingy as such.

Anyway, getting back on topic, again I'd think exactly the same as you when it came to asking someone out, I'd always expect and come prepared to pay. As you say, this would appear to me to be the 'proper' way of doing things. I really find it cringeworthy even in groups when people start getting out the calculators, so to do it on a date would be absolutely horrendous in my opinion.

To play devil's advocate mind you, if I am on a date, it's perfectly feasible that the woman, either unbeknownst to me, or more visibly, is not finding me riveting company and has no intention whatsoever of seeing me again. In that situation I can see that she may prefer to just pay her way and leave matters there. To then pay without her knowing could potentially get her seriously riled. So I think you can look at it both ways.

Pawwed Rig

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I don't know if I'm in the minority but I wouldn't know the difference between one from Dunnes and one that was €600.

The expensive ones usually have an ugly logo on them with Gucci, YSL or some other such branding written as large as possible so others will know at a distance that you spent ridiculous amounts of cash on a bag. I normally assume they are fakes until proven otherwise as I try to see the best in people :pac:

JeffKenna

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I don't know if I'm in the minority but I wouldn't know the difference between one from Dunnes and one that was €600.

Unless if the €600 bags are as gammy as those Louis Vuitton bags.

One word: ugh.

I would have thought any Louis Vuitton bags would have been bought in Turkey or somewhere akin?

miamee

A Primal Nut wrote: »

For the first couple of dates I would always ask to pay and expect to pay. Unless we go for an all-nighter drinking in which case I'd expect her to offer at some point (most girls will) but I won't really care if she doesn't.

I would say that to girls reading that you don't need to try hard to show you are independent by always letting him pay; at
least let him buy you a meal or a drink if he offers. Let him treat you - it's not a big deal and most guys like to. It's not a bad thing if you don't of course.

I would say to guys reading that if you get worked up about whether a girl offered to pay; you will miss out on a lot of great girls. There are more important things to focus on in the early dates. Just because a girl is letting you treat her doesn't reflect anything about her personality.

I think it's a shame that in general gender roles are sort of being phased out of relationships and it's all about equality these days. Of course that's a good thing when it comes to important things; but for little things it's fine to have the gender role traditions I think - can be a bit more fun.

I think that there is always room for both people in a couple to be generous, not just the man. How can you show your generosity if the other person insists on paying for everything in the first few dates? Then I just feel like some sort of scab or user for letting some guy pay for all these things and not letting me return the favour.
I wonder how same sex couples work this out without the traditional "I am the man, therefore I must pay" getting in the way? I'm sure whoever offers first just pays first time and they take turns or they split it - like any two people should in my opinion

Alf Veedersane

JeffKenna wrote: »

I would have thought any Louis Vuitton bags would have been bought in Turkey or somewhere akin?

Heh heh. I was going to add that alright.

If of course I knew the real deal was stupidly expensive.

Pinkmoon19

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Good for you and I am happy for you but it is not for me.
I would argue that while dating we are at our most judgemental anyway as we are trying to size up a persons whole life and personality in the space of a couple of hours which (you may agree) is virtually impossible.
I get turned off by materiality. Other people get turned off by other things. I won't wear clothes with labels on them for example (if I can help it). I am not meaning to be condescending, to each their own and all that. I am just expressing what turns me off.

That's your right and you're totally entitled to it. However my point is that you are in fact being as materialistic as the people you are turned off by. It's exactly the same mentality as someone saying "Right if he turns up in a cheap shirt from Penney's I'm off". But just in reverse. I would never judge someone on the clothes that that they wear on a date, I mean you can like their taste or not like their taste but it doesn't mean you know who they are as a person. I hope that makes sense.

coffee_cake

Eh, I have an expensive handbag because the cheaper ones kept fcuking breaking. This one has lasted the abuse I give them a LOT longer
It also doesn't have massive branding on it. I doubt you'd know unless you knew the brand. Or I wouldn't anyway.

Anyway re: dates, pay half unless they really insist but prefer to just split

fits

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The expensive ones usually have an ugly logo on them with Gucci, YSL or some other such branding written as large as possible so others will know at a distance that you spent ridiculous amounts of cash on a bag. I normally assume they are fakes until proven otherwise as I try to see the best in people :pac:

Logos aren't really in and some of the most expensive bags have no logo at all. Just so you know

This one will set you back a few grand.

Edit, not the knock off version obviously...

Alf Veedersane

I never made snap judgements based on material things a girl had.

The conversation will usually inform a decision on whether or not they have something because they are materialistic.

Unless they had made zero effort. Then perhaps.

That said, I judge people by the covers of the books they read. It's passed many a train journey.

Alf Veedersane

bluewolf wrote: »

Anyway re: dates, pay half unless they really insist but prefer to just split

Out the jacks window.

Bonnie and Clyde, wha'!

Malari

wolfen wrote: »

That's your right and you're totally entitled to it. However my point is that you are in fact being as materialistic as the people you are turned off by. It's exactly the same mentality as someone saying "Right if he turns up in a cheap shirt from Penney's I'm off". But just in reverse. I would never judge someone on the clothes that that they wear on a date, I mean you can like their taste or not like their taste but it doesn't mean you know who they are as a person. I hope that makes sense.

I'd agree with this. I appreciate Pawwed Rig's point about making snap judgements on first dates - most people will do this subconsciously anyway, and we can't help what we find attractive. This is slightly different than what was originally implied and I just don't think "designer bag = materialistic" is a fair presumption.

As bluewolf says, the better designs without doubt last longer than cheaper manufacturers and I know several friends have designer bags that were inherited from aunts and mothers and are decades old

mariaalice

A Primal Nut wrote: »

For the first couple of dates I would always ask to pay and expect to pay. Unless we go for an all-nighter drinking in which case I'd expect her to offer at some point (most girls will) but I won't really care if she doesn't.

I would say that to girls reading that you don't need to try hard to show you are independent by always letting him pay; at
least let him buy you a meal or a drink if he offers. Let him treat you - it's not a big deal and most guys like to. It's not a bad thing if you don't of course.

I would say to guys reading that if you get worked up about whether a girl offered to pay; you will miss out on a lot of great girls. There are more important things to focus on in the early dates. Just because a girl is letting you treat her doesn't reflect anything about her personality.

I think it's a shame that in general gender roles are sort of being phased out of relationships and it's all about equality these days. Of course that's a good thing when it comes to important things; but for little things it's fine to have the gender role traditions I think - can be a bit more fun.

There are very good points, however it is the EXPECTAION of being paid for that I think is odd. I have had dinner paid for lots of times its good grace and manners to let someone do but I would never ever have an expectation of being paid for. It does say something about the person if they have an expectation to be paid for the same way it says something about someone if they insist on 50/50 about every thing,

A man paying for dinner on a first date could mean..that's something they always do, or it could mean they are a bit showey and keen to impress, its not a test that shows they are generous.

Maguined

mariaalice wrote: »

There are very good points, however it is the EXPECTAION of being paid for that I think is odd. I have had dinner paid for lots of times its good grace and manners to let someone do but I would never ever have an expectation of being paid for. It does say something about the person if they have an expectation to be paid for the same way it says something about someone if they insist on 50/50 about every thing

I agree with this and it applies for nearly every aspect of a relationship.

Expectation versus appreciation. I think for most reasonable people if they feel appreciated they are willing to give more and more. However once you no longer feel appreciated if you get the slightest hint of expectation then you run a mile.

Stories like the glass waggling would be instant deal breakers for me. The more genuine the appreciation seems the more respect I have. I actually prefer dinner as a first date and vast majority of these date the ladies have been appreciative and made a genuine offer to split the bill. It has only been a very small number that I felt a sense of expectation.

Knex*

Everytime I envisage that glass wiggling, I simultaneously cringe and rage.

Eugh. :mad:

Pinkmoon19

Zulu wrote: »

When I was single, the way I just to work it was simple: if I ask you out on a date, I'm inviting you to join me. It's my invitation, so I'm paying. You can buy the first round after.

If you ask me, you're paying. I'll get the first round after.

If we (after a few dates) decide to get food, together, then it's 50/50.

This is the most straightforward explanation so far. I can totally equate to this. I would NEVER invite someone out for dinner and then expect them to pay. If I issue the invitation then I would expect to pay, for e.g. my younger sister's birthday. On the other hand if I make a plan with the girls that we are all going to meet for dinner then we would all split the bill. This is a really good rule of thumb, thanks Zulu.

Zulu

wolfen wrote: »

This is a really good rule of thumb, thanks Zulu.

I know! Keep it simple, right? I could never understand how this "issue" caused so much consternation.

Simplicity is the key to truth.

Alf Veedersane

Zulu wrote: »

I know! Keep it simple, right? I could never understand how this "issue" caused so much consternation.

Simplicity is the key to truth.

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free".


The Bible has all sorts of useful stuff in it! How to turn water into wine for parties and also how to feed the part guests with a couple of loaves of bread and some fish.

Potatoeman

I offer to pay but most women offer to go dutch. After the first date I would consider it tight not to take a turn paying.
The guy paying is very traditional but most people are not traditional.

I went out with a Slovakian woman that never paid but would do other things. She was genuinely very traditional.

Zulu

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free".


The Bible has all sorts of useful stuff in it! How to turn water into wine for parties and also how to feed the part guests with a couple of loaves of bread and some fish.

That post is required over her --> Thread about wedding with no food.

jaymcg91

miamee wrote: »

I think that there is always room for both people in a couple to be generous, not just the man. How can you show your generosity if the other person insists on paying for everything in the first few dates? Then I just feel like some sort of scab or user for letting some guy pay for all these things and not letting me return the favour.
I wonder how same sex couples work this out without the traditional "I am the man, therefore I must pay" getting in the way? I'm sure whoever offers first just pays first time and they take turns or they split it - like any two people should in my opinion

As a gay guy, every date I've ever been on the bill has been split 50 / 50 down the middle. I wouldn't dream of assuming that someone was going to pay for my food, I can buy my own!

However once you're in a relationship it's different, like if my guy is a week away from payday and broke you get the meal, and vice versa etc.

Pawwed Rig

jaymcg91 wrote: »

As a gay guy, every date I've ever been on the bill has been split 50 / 50 down the middle. I wouldn't dream of assuming that someone was going to pay for my food, I can buy my own!

However once you're in a relationship it's different, like if my guy is a week away from payday and broke you get the meal, and vice versa etc.

I would imagine gay relationships are more equal in general as you do not have to deal with who 'should pay.
The issue is that if the person who issues the invitation should always pay then this causes an inequality as in my experience it is normally the man that is 'expected' to make the initial approach to ask a girl on the first date. Where I was in active dating mode that could be a huge expense over the course of a few months. Were women equally as likely to ask a guy out on a date I may agree but as is I would think it unfair to expect men to essentially finance every first date.

who_me

Funny all the little rituals and norms we have... For me, if I ask someone out I expect to pay. She'll more than likely offer to pay half. I'll politely reply that's not necessary. If she insists, I won't object, otherwise I'm perfectly happy to pay. It's all a bit random and arbitrary.. but if it doesn't happen like that I'd be a little miffed (i.e. if she makes no offer to pay whatsoever, or if she is angry/aggressive about me assuming that I'd pay).

It's not just an old-fashioned (or sexist) thing, it's also a bit of a personality trait. I always feel bad going to the bar without offering a drink to those I'm drinking with, yet I also feel bad if others feel obliged to buy me drink. So I inevitably end up buying more than my share. (Plus I hate being tied to others' drinking schedule! )

Not that I'd know.. last time I had a date I paid in sea-shells and shiny stones.

beks101

who_me wrote: »

Funny all the little rituals and norms we have... For me, if I ask someone out I expect to pay. She'll more than likely offer to pay half. I'll politely reply that's not necessary. If she insists, I won't object, otherwise I'm perfectly happy to pay. It's all a bit random and arbitrary.. but if it doesn't happen like that I'd be a little miffed (i.e. if she makes no offer to pay whatsoever, or if she is angry/aggressive about me assuming that I'd pay).

It's not just an old-fashioned (or sexist) thing, it's also a bit of a personality trait. I always feel bad going to the bar without offering a drink to those I'm drinking with, yet I also feel bad if others feel obliged to buy me drink. So I inevitably end up buying more than my share. (Plus I hate being tied to others' drinking schedule! )

Not that I'd know.. last time I had a date I paid in sea-shells and shiny stones.

This would be my approach too. That's the way I am with money when it comes to friends and family and it extends into relationships.

My boyfriend paid on our first date. He insisted, I insisted, he wouldn't hear of it and that was that. He's always trying to whip out his wallet because he's extremely generous and it's a trait that spans right across the board, he's that way with his mates and pretty much anyone he encounters too. Generally we tend to take it in turns in an informal sense, but there's times when I don't have cash on me or vice verse, or things like I book flights, he gets accommodation etc etc...it all comes out in the wash I find.

I don't think I would ever have ended up with someone who didn't have this approach towards money as I'd find a clinical or stiff tit-for-tat, score-keeping kind of approach extremely off-putting.

I've met guys like that though. I remember dating a guy in Canada, on our fifth or sixth date I didn't have any cash on me and the pub didn't take debit cards (which in itself was unusual and I never would've carried cash with me for that reason). We'd only had a few drinks anyway so the bill was pretty minor, but he sat there and let me walk about a mile up the street to withdraw my half of the bill instead of just settling and letting me get the next one, as I always would anyway. In that moment alone I just lost interest in the guy as it's just the opposite to how I operate when it comes to these things.

If the shoe was on the other foot I'd be absolutely horrified at the prospect of someone leaving and coming back just so they could drop a measly $20 on their side of the table, regardless of whether it was a friend or a date or a family member or whatever.

pwurple

Deleted User wrote: »

Or good with numbers. I normally know what the bill should come to in restaurants, supermarket and much more. So I often do not check a bill for the sole reason that when the waiting staff / cashier said the total it matched the expectation I already had.

Where are you eating that they SAY the total as they give you the bill? McDonalds?? You have to physically look at it to check, is this honestly so hard to understand? It's like I'm the only person who has ever been in a restaurant in here!!

I'm talking about the eejit who tosses a credit card on the bill without ever opening the leather sleeve it's in, or even glancing at the number on it.

eeeee

LordNorbury wrote: »

If you come at it from another direction, imagine you get asked out for dinner and the guy at the end of the evening starts stepping through the bill and adding up who had what on the iPhone or even if he just splits it in half and says, "right love, that's 50 Euro each", do you not think that that looks really scabby and downright mean?

If a girl insists on going 50-50 beforehand and insists that she feels strongly about this, I have to respect that, but I still have my own view that you do not ask a girl out to dinner and then hand her half the bill, that just isn't on in my view. I actually think that it is disrespectful and demeaning to go at a dinner date in that manner.

I suppose I don't understand how the guy is fundamentally more responsible (financially) for the date than the lady just because he did the asking out?
Caveat-I have made the first move in 100% of my relationships/dates so far in life, but still after the initial contact, he might suggest dinner or whatever. I just don't understand why he is more liable for the cost of it just because he suggested it?
When it's a date with another lady it's 50-50 always, as it is with the guys but some really insist on paying and i don't know why.
The only reason i can see for paying is if the other person is flat broke and you ask them out and pay coz of that-because you want to see them (and you can afford it. I'm crap for it at the moment it's really embarrassing ), but a date is a mutual agreement so why should one party bear the cost more than the other?
It's possible I'm just broken and don't get it. Especially about the 'she paid half she doesn't want yo see you again' thing. I genuinely never heard that before!