to prefer a man to pay on the first date?

[partie]

I am a woman. I barely go in first dates. When I do I always offer to split and my offer is genuine, and I become prepared to split but I always prefer they pay for the first date and then I grab the second.

The main reasons for this is that is shows they are not stingy, have a genuine interest in me, and in the future if we became a couple it would signal that they would be willing to help me out should I ever become jobless instead of seeing finances as completely separate. This is security I need from a relationship and it would work both ways.

Do you prefer a man to pay on the first date? I am not asking if men should or are obligated, only what your preference is.

YABU- I prefer to split/ I pay
YANBU - I would prefer the man pays

YANBU. The cocklodgers always ‘start off going 50:50 with everything’ and get progressively stingier so I think it’s a good sign of generosity and their investment in you. It’ll get the feminist backs up on here, but how you value yourself is how they will value you.

You are missing the point.

It's not about whether HE wants to go 50/50.

It's about whether YOU do.

I'm pretty sure that even the most generous of men would take a dim view of a woman they're dating who never paid for anything. Unless they're complete dinosaurs. Or sugar daddies.

Did I say ‘never paying for anything’?

What utter rubbish!

Please demonstrate where I've called someone a "thot"..."worthless"..."gold digger"..."shameless"..."freeloader" etc. I'll wait.

Oh, no that was the 50/50 brigade.

But when the question was asked "what's dating got to do with being in a relationship or being married?" I, and numerous posters explained. In fact when the question was repeated 6 times, we repeated the same explanation. When asked the identical thing for the 7th time, I indeed said I had neither the patience, or could make the repeated explanation any simpler, with diagrams...or Crayola....or anything. And that it's different strokes for different folks, each stance is personal preference. That's unacceptable to some. Their way is "right" and anyone happy living their life differently is a needy embarrassment...

Not in my experience!

It’s amazing how many women on here seem to think a ‘gold digging’ woman would shag a bloke she didn’t really like for a Bella Italia and a couple of G&Ts 🙄

And yet you miss out you being patronising.

and that you have twisted what others have posted but by all means you do you.

And once again do to you not listening or understanding I called you and others out for calling men who don't pay for the entire meal freeloaders and not doing the same for women that pay for none of the meal.

As long as you are happy with it, but don't pretend that you are morally better than others on the thread

Can you really not see the irony? You and others are sitting posting telling everyone if a man won’t pay for you he is worthless. Not worth you seeing him again. Stingy. Tight. But You try to argue the same logic doesn’t apply to you as a woman?

it applies to either sex equally. What you think of a man who won’t pay is what everyone else thinks of a woman who doesn’t want to. Because it applies to both genders equally, hence why splitting it is best.

I don’t think it does apply equally.

If you look at nature, it’s the males in the species that have to ‘impress’ the female.

It’s an entirely natural thing, if we’re going to let someone impregnate us we need to know they’ll share their catch, so to speak.

We’re inherently more vulnerable so shouldn’t give ourselves away cheaply.

Lol it applies equally, and what’s with the men have to impress us to impregnate us, 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂🤣🤣🤣😂😂

I don't know. Bella Italia is quite expensive nowadays, as are G&T's!

It doesn’t apply equally because men can’t get pregnant.

Your logic is unreasonable in that what if the man reasonably felt the same - how would he be reassured by you if he felt like you and for the same reasons? A relationship wouldn't get off the ground as whoever paid first one of you would be put off by your logic. And so just pay halves and be done with it

Also is it not a complete reach that by paying for the first date it somehow means they'd support you if you were jobless?! Huge difference between one meal and that level of financial support. Some men may pay expecting something non financial in return. Others may want to go halves but be someone who wpuld happily support someone they loved (and they wouldn't love you from date one). You could be cutting off loads of lovely men and entertaining relationships with a bunch who pay because they think they're getting something (not saying all men who pay do this but some certainly do so expecting something).

Unless you all are having sex on the first date no one is getting pregnant so it's irrelevant to who pays

Based on this very odd logic are we allowed to pay half if we confirm the man has had a vasectomy first?

Well obviously that’s not what I meant and you know that.

As the more vulnerable sex we have to hold the men to higher expectations than they hold us, to ensure they’re worth the commitment.

Well thank you for telling me what I know, that's so helpful when clearly I don't know my own mind 🙄

I believe in everyone being equal and everyone being held to the same standards personally.

A weird thing about MN and some of the incel/MRA boards I've read is that you find bullshit evolutionary psychology touted as deep wisdom on both of them.

Like... yes male ducks have to impress female ducks with bright plumage but male ducks also rape female ducks.

I don't really want to take lessons in social norms from ducks. I am not a duck. Humans in civilised society behave differently to ducks. "Look at nature" makes no sense in the context of human dating.

And there are plenty of other animal species where your blanket statement doesn't apply anyway.

@gannett it isn’t evolutionary psychology it’s basic biology. Men, even if today’s society, are the primary providers. If couples split the kids tend to stay more with mum while dad pays CMS. So it makes sense to ensure they’re generous and caring before settling down with them.

Like I said all the ‘cocklodger’ threads start with a
man who obsesses over everything being exactly ‘equal’ before slowly eroding the boundaries so the women is paying for food, hosting him etc.

I’ve never known a relationship go well where the man splits hairs over £10 on a first date.

Male clownfish do the housework to impress their women, if we are going to pick a 'look at the animal kingdom example' can we go with that.

Came round and do my dusting and then I will decide whether I want to date you or not 😂

But as @gannett says there are animals where this blanket statement doesn't apply anyway.

And given animals also don't use washing machines, wear clothes or cook their food you will forgive me if I am suddenly not planning on imitating them when dating....

Clownfish aren’t mammals. They lay eggs. The babies then swim off.

Why isn’t making someone do your housework as ‘bad’ as expecting them to pay for a first date? Aren’t both exploitative to you?

Sorry, I only just skim read, but the post above by Cuppasoupmonster - " I don’t think it does apply equally. If you look at nature, it’s the males in the species that have to ‘impress’ the female," is interesting, I think.

The so-called "50/50 brigade" are totally missing the point because they are the ones making this about money and nothing else. It's not about money. Humans have their "mating rituals", like any other species.

I'm sure there's are "gold digger" women out there , but the vast majority of women who prefer a man to pay in a date really don't give a hoot about his money or a free dinner! It's more a subconscious dynamic. Some women respond to this, other women feel threatened by it (as is clear from this thread).

The women who equate 'equality to men' with 'always taking the same role as men' are obviously going to feel aggravated by a man paying for them because that is a 'role difference'. Probably, they are the same women who would be annoyed at a man holding the door for them or giving up a seat, simply because they are female. They would no doubt say something like, "you should hold doors for all humans equally" etc etc. But if a man is holding a door for a woman out of his own sense of chivalry and a woman responds to that behaviour - well, it's not about the actual door is it? It's similar with the dynamic about a man paying on dates. It's the gesture some (most?) women respond to - not the fact it saves them a few £! It's s kind of mating ritual and some people / couples will gravitate to those dynamics more then others. It's not about wrong or right. There are no laws about how people "should" instinctively feel in relation to romantic / sexual attraction and behaviours. Each to their own.

It’s a conundrum. Of course 50/50 is fairer and ultimately best. But a man who doesn’t offer is more than likely to turn out to be a skinflint and they’re generally not the best people.
I think this will be less of a problem over time as young people seem more comfortable with 50/50.