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

Malari

sun structures wrote: »

OT but does anyone else really hate the term "future partner", "current OH" etc? Makes it seem like such an official type business relationship. :P

I knew a guy who split up with a girlfriend he had been engaged to. He referred to her as his "former future wife". :pac:

miamee

LordNorbury wrote: »

Here's an interesting thought angle on the subject of paying... On my date the other night, when I said I wanted to pay & she responded that she wanted to pay half the bill, (and don't forget this dinner date went very well in terms of conversation, etc), but on some silly level, I got it into my head that she was offering to pay her half, because even though the night had gone well, there was no great chemistry and I got it into my head that she was signalling to me in an indirect sort of a way at the very end of our date, that she didn't see a 2nd date in it at that stage and didn't want to basically "sting" me for the cost of her meal, in the knowledge that if I asked to meet her again, I'd probably be told "nah I don't think there was enough chemistry for a 2nd date", or else that I'd get the "you're a really nice gonna chatty guy but no chemistry on the night" line.

As it happened I went with my gut feeling & didn't pursue a 2nd date with her, but I did interpret the insisting on paying on her part, as signalling on some level that she didn't want to feel like a bit of a cúnt if I had paid for the whole thing & then asked her out again only to be told no?!?

And you thought women were complicated lol?!?

The way you interpreted it and the way it was from her point of view may not have been one and the same! But you are possibly correct in your assumptions, time will tell The below is also possible and I admit might be even more complicated:

You go on a dinner date with someone. The bill is expensive and you feel you should pay half - paying full seems like a lot of money that would see you broke/struggling for the week as it is an unexpected expense and you don't want to do that to this guy you just met so you offer to/insist on paying half.

Alternatively, you are thinking if he pays for this expensive dinner and we go out again, it will be my turn to pay and I can't afford something this expensive to match the dinner so...I'll just pay half of this and we can do something less expensive next time.

LordNorbury

miamee wrote: »

The way you interpreted it and the way it was from her point of view may not have been one and the same! But you are possibly correct in your assumptions, time will tell The below is also possible and I admit might be even more complicated:

You go on a dinner date with someone. The bill is expensive and you feel you should pay half - paying full seems like a lot of money that would see you broke/struggling for the week as it is an unexpected expense and you don't want to do that to this guy you just met so you offer to/insist on paying half.

Alternatively, you are thinking if he pays for this expensive dinner and we go out again, it will be my turn to pay and I can't afford something this expensive to match the dinner so...I'll just pay half of this and we can do something less expensive next time.

You are dead right there, I could be completely wrong in my little assessment, the trouble is that when I've ignored my gut feeling before and asked a girl for a 2nd date when there was no great spark, I got told no every time, so now if I'm not feeling that spark by the end of a first date and if I haven't kissed her (I'm a notoriously difficult first date wear!), then I just won't pursue it to a second date, I won't even ask...

The girl I was on the date with the other night could well see it very differently, she could be wondering why is there complete radio silence (no texting the next day), when the date appeared on the face of it to go really well in terms of conversation and a bit of a laugh & a giggle... But I think a good date where you are having a laugh, doesn't equate with credible chemistry where you can make it go somewhere romantically. That will sound cruel & heartless but I'm looking for that big spark too...

Dial Hard

If you wouldn't mind seeing her again, then text her. The worst that can happen is she'll say no, but at least then you'll no for sure instead of spending the next week wondering if you misinterpreted her insistence on paying and wondering is she scratching her head going "What happened there?"

Tbh, I think you're putting far too much significance on their being an identifiable chemistry "signal" at the end of the first date. Yeah, it's damn nice when there is one, but people can be shy, people can be nervous, people can be waiting on the other party to make the first move, whatever. I just wouldn't be so quick to write off the possibility of a second date with someone just because she didn't lob the gob on the first one. As a matter of interest, why didn't you go in for a kiss? Just because she wanted to pay for half of the meal?

LordNorbury

Dial Hard wrote: »

If you wouldn't mind seeing her again, then text her. The worst that can happen is she'll say no, but at least then you'll no for sure instead of spending the next week wondering if you misinterpreted her insistence on paying and wondering is she scratching her head going "What happened there?"

Tbh, I think you're putting far too much significance on their being an identifiable chemistry "signal" at the end of the first date. Yeah, it's damn nice when there is one, but people can be shy, people can be nervous, people can be waiting on the other party to make the first move, whatever. I just wouldn't be so quick to write off the possibility of a second date with someone just because she didn't lob the gob on the first one. As a matter of interest, why didn't you go in for a kiss? Just because she wanted to pay for half of the meal?

I fully hear what you are saying, but my approach with it these days is built on the back of my own particular experiences, and when dating in this manner, a guy simply have to legislate for the fact that chemistry is hard to find between two people and that the success rate is relatively low when trying to meet a partner in this particular manner. You could argue that the success rate is whatever you want it to be, but you can't force these things I think, to me, asking a girl for a kiss at the end of a date where you have gotten on well but have not really found a romantic spark between you, is absolutely cringeworthy and comes across as desperate and needy and is likely to result in a girl feeling seriously uncomfortable in your company. It's one of those things, the moment has to just be there and it happens on its own accord or else it doesn't.

Chemistry is a big thing for people when internet dating, (just like it is a big thing for people when offline dating), it is hard to come by, but when you do find it, it is a great feeling as we all know, but you genuinely can't force it, it is either there or else it isn't. For this reason, online dating can feel very businesslike at times...

Dial Hard

You don't have to ask her for a kiss, you lean in and initiate one! She'll either reciprocate or back off, either way you have your answer.

From reading some of your other posts on online dating, I really think you're approaching it from far too serious and formal an angle - almost like a business meeting - and then you're surprised when there's no chemistry. Real life isn't Hollywood, the sparks don't just fly regardless of the setting, you need an atmosphere that's conducive to chemistry developing. And it seems to me that your first date of choice (dinner) isn't necessarily working in this regard.

I've been online dating, on and off, for about two years now, and honestly, the best option for a first date, imo, is a few drinks. To me, coffee is for meetings and just dinner is a bit too formal for a first date. If you go for a drink and then both feel like grabbing something to eat after a while, then that's all good and well, but I wouldn't be an advocate of just dinner as a date in and of itself.

LordNorbury

Dial Hard wrote: »

You don't have to ask her for a kiss, you lean in and initiate one! She'll either reciprocate or back off, either way you have your answer.

From reading some of your other posts on online dating, I really think you're approaching it from far too serious and formal an angle - almost like a business meeting - and then you're surprised when there's no chemistry. Real life isn't Hollywood, the sparks don't just fly regardless of the setting, you need an atmosphere that's conducive to chemistry developing. And it seems to me that your first date of choice (dinner) isn't necessarily working in this regard.

I've been online dating, on and off, for about two years now, and honestly, the best option for a first date, imo, is a few drinks. To me, coffee is for meetings and just dinner is just a bit too formal for a first date. If you go for a drink and then both feel like grabbing something to eat after a while, then that's all good and well, but I wouldn't be an advocate of just dinner as a date in and of itself.

You are right, I fully accept your point that casual drinks is the best way of finding a bit of a spark, coffee dates are pointless and dinner dates are too formal for a first date.

I've done a lot of online dating and you really have to take into account the broad totality of those experiences I think, when dating online and deciding what you are going to give headspace to, and what you are not going to give headspace to. I've had some great first dates that were dinner dates, I've had some great dates that were not dinner dates but were some other format, like an event based date, and like everyone else, I've had a handful of disastrous dates as well...

I don't think I take a serious approach to dating, but I am looking for a big spark and a load of chemistry, I'm not into kissing girls at the end of the night just for the sake of it, I'm looking for something very particular and very specific, and when I find it, I'll know pretty much immediately. I've made a decision for myself that anything that doesn't meet with or fit in closely with what I'm looking for, I won't pursue and I actually think that that is the fairest and most reasonable and genuine way to approach dating, because other than that, you are just wasting someones time I think.

I don't think though that the fact that I'm fairly honed in on what I'm looking for in terms of a long term partner, makes me a serious person to deal with on a date, but I think the key to not having your balls broken with online dating, is learning how to differentiate between what has romantic potential and what doesn't, after a first date.

riveratom

LordNorbury wrote: »

Went on a dinner date last night, it was a first date, we hadn't discussed how we were paying beforehand, there was no agreement to go dutch or whatever, we both just showed up. Had a grand evening I have to say, conversation didn't seem to be a problem at all as we both are chatty individuals, although we seemed to get on well and click on one level, I didn't think that there was an abundance of chemistry between us. I would definitely have fancied her but didn't feel by the end of the evening, that this was reciprocated, in fact I actually felt quite decisively that it probably wasn't, although there was nothing she said or did that gave me that impression, it was more the absence of something, just a gut feeling that I had.

At the end of the night, we called for the bill, when the bill landed down to the table I told her I insisted on paying, as I had asked her out for dinner, then she insisted on paying for her half, but I insisted on paying for us and she was (a bit reluctantly) grand with that then. We are most unlikely to meet again and I kind of knew this by the end of the night when I insisted that I wanted to pay the bill for the both of us, (the point being that I had no romantic interest left in insisting that I pay for both of us at that stage), but still and all, I still think it is right to follow things things through and if you are bringing a girl out to dinner, that you don't start making a total fool out of yourself by putting your paw out for half the bill at the end of the night.

So upwards and onwards as the man says...

LordNorbury wrote: »

Here's an interesting thought angle on the subject of paying... On my date the other night, when I said I wanted to pay & she responded that she wanted to pay half the bill, (and don't forget this dinner date went very well in terms of conversation, etc), but on some silly level, I got it into my head that she was offering to pay her half, because even though the night had gone well, there was no great chemistry and I got it into my head that she was signalling to me in an indirect sort of a way at the very end of our date, that she didn't see a 2nd date in it at that stage and didn't want to basically "sting" me for the cost of her meal, in the knowledge that if I asked to meet her again, I'd probably be told "nah I don't think there was enough chemistry for a 2nd date", or else that I'd get the "you're a really nice gonna chatty guy but no chemistry on the night" line.

As it happened I went with my gut feeling & didn't pursue a 2nd date with her, but I did interpret the insisting on paying on her part, as signalling on some level that she didn't want to feel like a bit of a cúnt if I had paid for the whole thing & then asked her out again only to be told no?!?

And you thought women were complicated lol?!?

Good heavens man, you fancy the girl but are trying to second guess whether she fancies you....which is purely guesswork as the expression suggests...text her for fork's sake!

Who cares if she doesn't feel the same way, you might have a mildly bruised ego for an hour or so. However is she does want a second date then she is sitting there right now wondering why you aren't texting. Madness!

I wouldn't over-think things if I were you

riveratom

LordNorbury wrote: »

You are right, I fully accept your point that casual drinks is the best way of finding a bit of a spark, coffee dates are pointless and dinner dates are too formal for a first date.

I've done a lot of online dating and you really have to take into account the broad totality of those experiences I think, when dating online and deciding what you are going to give headspace to, and what you are not going to give headspace to. I've had some great first dates that were dinner dates, I've had some great dates that were not dinner dates but were some other format, like an event based date, and like everyone else, I've had a handful of disastrous dates as well...

I don't think I take a serious approach to dating, but I am looking for a big spark and a load of chemistry, I'm not into kissing girls at the end of the night just for the sake of it, I'm looking for something very particular and very specific, and when I find it, I'll know pretty much immediately. I've made a decision for myself that anything that doesn't meet with or fit in closely with what I'm looking for, I won't pursue and I actually think that that is the fairest and most reasonable and genuine way to approach dating, because other than that, you are just wasting someones time I think.

I don't think though that the fact that I'm fairly honed in on what I'm looking for in terms of a long term partner, makes me a serious person to deal with on a date, but I think the key to not having your balls broken with online dating, is learning how to differentiate between what has romantic potential and what doesn't, after a first date.

That presumes that you can learn how to tell what has romantic potential and what doesn't, after a first date?

As I said, I wouldn't over-think or second guess things. If I fancy someone, I text them, even if I am unsure as to whether they feel the same. There are only two outcomes. A positive one could turn into something great. A not so positive one is still hopefully a good experience (you got to go on a date with someone you presumably liked and fancied at least a little bit).

Potatoeman

Dial Hard wrote: »

You don't have to ask her for a kiss, you lean in and initiate one! She'll either reciprocate or back off, either way you have your answer.

From reading some of your other posts on online dating, I really think you're approaching it from far too serious and formal an angle - almost like a business meeting - and then you're surprised when there's no chemistry. Real life isn't Hollywood, the sparks don't just fly regardless of the setting, you need an atmosphere that's conducive to chemistry developing. And it seems to me that your first date of choice (dinner) isn't necessarily working in this regard.

I've been online dating, on and off, for about two years now, and honestly, the best option for a first date, imo, is a few drinks. To me, coffee is for meetings and just dinner is a bit too formal for a first date. If you go for a drink and then both feel like grabbing something to eat after a while, then that's all good and well, but I wouldn't be an advocate of just dinner as a date in and of itself.

If you dont try for a kiss on the first date most woman would think you are not into them. That said others would think you are moving too fast. I usually go for a peck on the cheek and see how she reacts. It depends on body language.

Maximus Alexander

To be honest I don't really know why people aren't more direct about things. In this situation I'd probably just wind up the date by saying something like "I had a great time tonight, but I sense that you might not have been feeling a spark. Am I right or would you be up for doing it again some time?" Then you know exactly where you stand.

Dial Hard

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

To be honest I don't really know why people aren't more direct about things.

Agreed. Any first date I've been on where I liked the guy, I threw the lips on him. He knows exactly where he stands then!

LordNorbury

riveratom wrote: »

That presumes that you can learn how to tell what has romantic potential and what doesn't, after a first date?

As I said, I wouldn't over-think or second guess things. If I fancy someone, I text them, even if I am unsure as to whether they feel the same. There are only two outcomes. A positive one could turn into something great. A not so positive one is still hopefully a good experience (you got to go on a date with someone you presumably liked and fancied at least a little bit).

I don't think listening to your guy feeling is really second guessing things, I think after going at internet dating for a while, you develop a fairly solid instinct or intuition for where something is at the end of a first date. Many lads would be braver than me and would always go for a snog, I just wouldn't unless I really felt that this was what she wanted. It's just the way I am, and always have been, and at this stage of my life, this is how I am pretty much.

I still have enough success with it generally, to make it worth my while continuing with it...

Sauve

Mod

Guys can we get back on topic please!

Thanks,
Sauve

Moat_Cailin

Dates Friday and Saturday, so unless they insist I could well be broke by Sunday morning

Dial Hard

Moat_Cailin wrote: »

Dates Friday and Saturday, so unless they insist I could well be broke by Sunday morning

Don't bring them out for dinner, problem solved!

SherlockWatson

Or don't take people to dinner one day after the other! problem solved :pac:

sugar_lover

i tried internet dating last year ( found someone eventually )

went on dates with about eight women , two were non irish , they were the only two who offered to put their hand in their pocket

iptba

sugar_lover wrote: »

i tried internet dating last year ( found someone eventually )

went on dates with about eight women , two were non irish , they were the only two who offered to put their hand in their pocket

If you feel inclined, can you be more specific about their background. My impression from the thread was that eastern Europeans were less likely to pay than Irish (but hard to remember everything said).

aqn29swlgbmiu4

I feel so awkward when anyone pays for me, I try not to allow it at all! I always try and even it out by like, buying the next round or the sweets in the cinema. I do know a few girls who won't even hold hands with a lad till he forks out minimum of E200!

Macavity.

First date I pay and if she objects enough times we split the bill.

Wibbs

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I never got this whole thing of "personality is the most important thing to me" and that people who go for looks in a future partner are "shallow".

+1000. Personality is a given, but if they don't pass the willy test then it's only ever going to be friendship. Which is fine too of course. TBH once or twice I bought into the "oh I must be shallow" guff and tried to run on personality, but it didn't work at all.

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

I'd never go for women based on looks, personality is much more important.

The unkind might suggest that this is because you can't afford to make the choice.

Also you must consider, a lot of women age really really badly. Not all, but a good few I know don't look half as good as they did when they were younger.

Just as many men age really badly, it's just that aging signs are more socially/reproductively acceptable in men. There are an awful lot of men who look middle aged at 30, sporting guts, bad hair and old man clothing long before their time. A school mate of mine went from being one of the coolest blokes around in style and attitude to an old man wearing cardigans at 20. Mentally I have found men are worse for aging before their time and are much more likely to get stuck in mental ruts. In any event OK looking people at 20 tend to be OK looking people at 50. Few enough IME go from knockout to disaster. IMHO this idea of "oh people are gonna age so looks don't matter" is more likely to be found in people where their looks never mattered in the first place.

professore wrote: »

Personally I think if you do the asking, male or female, then you should expect to pay. It's nothing to do with gender roles, it's the same in business ... if you ask someone to dinner for a business purpose you are expected to pay too.

Exactly P. Nail on head. Simple logistics and manners. If I ask someone out I pay. Simples.

As for the usual Boards trope of Irish women are baaaad. That again IME is a load of me bollocks. I'd go so far as to say Irish women are among the most easy going on this score and are far more likely to stick their hands in their purse come bill time and more likely to pay their way across the board. Even OTT high maintenance types funny enough. Other cultures can be much more the man must pay. The more traditional the gender roles the more likely this will be. Eastern European women were mentioned and yep that has been my experience too. They expect the man to pay on dates. There's a bigger gender role vibe going on. Horses for courses I suppose.

Pawwed Rig

Wibbs wrote: »

+1000. Personality is a given, but if they don't pass the willy test then it's only ever going to be friendship. Which is fine too of course. TBH once or twice I bought into the "oh I must be shallow" guff and tried to run on personality, but it didn't work at all.

I think the point is that looks are not as important as people like to think. For example I would take a 7/10 looks wise with a good personality over a 10/10 that bores me to tears. There needs to be an attraction but personality is what makes the relationship.

Wibbs

Oh sure P. The personality of a wet fish is not gonna be anyone's picnic and it gets old fast. It's the overall package, but in that package sexual attraction in the form of looks is a very large part of it. EG yes you'll drop a looker if she turns out to be a complete PITA, but you're more likely to screen for her looks in the first place and quite a few will give a looker they think "out of their league" a lot more leeway on her personality*. I've seen that one more than once. On the other hand you are just as likely to completely write off a woman whose looks don't pass the personal willy standard and she could have a marvelous personality, but you'll never know because you never approached her in the first place.

I suppose in the end it doesn't really matter as there are as many real lookers with great personalities as there are non lookers who are a complete PITA. I would say there's a bit of a meme and fallacy about that holds that good looking women are more likely to be a PITA, shallow, dim, narcissistic, entitled etc. IMHO and IME it makes little difference.





*actually I would say if a guy thinks a woman is "out of their league", they're usually already screwed.

JeffKenna

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I think the point is that looks are not as important as people like to think. For example I would take a 7/10 looks wise with a good personality over a 10/10 that bores me to tears. There needs to be an attraction but personality is what makes the relationship.

You are 100% in what you're saying. However there seems to be an underlying suggestion that just because a girl is good looking that her personality will not match that. Some of the nicest girls I've met personality wise have also been model like stunning.

Visa versa one or two girls that have been average looks wise have literally bored me to tears.

Maximus Alexander

JeffKenna wrote: »

Some of the nicest girls I've met personality wise have also been model like stunning.

Are you completely sure that some sort of biological process wasn't working to try and make you find them more interesting?

Potatoeman

JeffKenna wrote: »

You are 100% in what you're saying. However there seems to be an underlying suggestion that just because a girl is good looking that her personality will not match that. Some of the nicest girls I've met personality wise have also been model like stunning.

Visa versa one or two girls that have been average looks wise have literally bored me to tears.

I think attraction is more important than looks. You can be more attracted to someone not because they are objectively attractive. Saying personality is more important ignores this vital factor.

Maximus Alexander

Potatoeman wrote: »

I think attraction is more important than looks. You can be more attracted to someone not because they are objectively attractive. Saying personality is more important ignores this vital factor.

This is true. There's more to attraction than just personality or looks. There's the way the two combine, the persons mannerisms or idiosyncrasies, the way they present themselves, the way they smell, the circumstances under which you meet, etc.

It's a complex thing, but personality and looks are probably the most prominent or, at least, easiest to define.

Penny Tration

I'd say looks and personality are equally important. I can't date someone with bad personality traits, but equally I can't shag a personality.

iptba

(September 18 article)

"It's 2014: Why Are Men Still Paying for First Dates?" (September 18)
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/why-do-men-keep-paying-for-the-first-date/380387/