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

Why am I being misogynistic?

Yeah, its the minefield of dating.

Seriously though, I got into a MN debate about this very thing a while ago.

So I asked my 27 year old son (anecdotal evidence alert).

His response was, yes he would automatically pay for the first date.

After that they would either take turns, or for the most part go dutch, but no-one is counting the pennies.

If after that she was a persistent non-contributor, he would take a dim view.

In fairness, if he was dating someone on minimum wage, he has enough nouse to know they can't afford it, and would stand the bulk of the expense, quite rightly. He's a decent lad.

But at the time they would have both been graduates in relatively well paid jobs.

Maybe she is the pinnacle of sex based equality for women who are child-free? Maybe they are allowed to have an opinion on the pinnacle of sex based equality for them

I mean I know women without children have already been told they dont have the right to an opinion on women paying on a first date on this thread, but we also aren't allowed an opinion on how to be career woman now?

Out of interest what are we allowed an opinion on if its not dating and careers?

We've already had someone stating that her druggie ex didn't pay on the first date and that's why she was financially abused, it wax indicative due to that one action.

I mean, now you're just lying.

She alluded that she ended up in a terrible relationship with a man who had many many faults and abusive nature, and that of several men she had dated, happened to remember he was one who wanted to split dinner bills early on.

You are now inventing nonsense things to "argue" with because you have no stance to debate the actual topic. Like PP said, you are all over the shop with your posts. You remind me very much of DS, who gets a bee in his bonnet and tries to back up his stance with things that don't apply, or are illogical, but he can't see it for all the explanations in the world, and all he does is further demonstrate he's not even understanding the other perspective, just thinks he's being so terribly clever. He's 14 though.

I mean I know women without children have already been told they dont have the right to an opinion on women paying on a first date on this thread

Could you direct to/quote the post where this is said please?

She stated that two men she dated that were "losers" were the ones that didn't pay first date.

Scroll back if you have time, she clearly states that it was indicative that they were the ones that were tight/abusive.

I've not got enough time to scroll back to highlight the posts.

Sorry.

I've already direct quoted it once

Go and scroll back, it's been pointed out more than once!

She stated that two men she dated that were "losers" were the ones that didn't pay first date.

Yep.

she clearly states that it was indicative that they were the ones that were tight/abusive

Nope.

Tight with money. Yes. And both turned out to be. The fact that one turned out to be a horrible human being with a drug addiction as well, she was absolutely not saying she could have spotted from his non splitting of the bills. Which is what PP is simply lying about. She's already been called out for her derogatory remarks to that poster, concerning what must have been a terrible relationship. It's not ok.

Sorry, where? Maybe it's cropped out?

I have the last few pages, is it before that?

I also agree with another poster that women without children cannot comment

Because apparently we have to have children before we are allowed to comment on who should pay on a first date and what makes a man a good partner. Bit fucking late then 🙄

@TwinsAndTiramisu well if you've not read it, I assume it is before then?

£70k you say?

"Do we actually know why it became tradition for men to pay?"

It was a tradition, up until I'd say the 90s.

I was listening to a R4 program this morning about equality of pay. And the consensus is that yes, women are paid less than men over time. But that's when you factor in maternity leave and women staying at home to rear their children, and taking part-time work.

There is no evidence for women being paid less than men for doing the same job (contrary to reports).

From the House of Commons Library:

Median weekly pay for female full-time employees was £558 at April 2021, based on data from the ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings. This compared to £652 for male full-time employees. After adjusting for inflation, median pay for women working full-time was around 2% higher than its level in the financial crash in 2008, while median pay for men was around 8% lower. As of April 2020, the gender pay gap in median hourly pay (excluding overtime) for men and women was:

• 7.9% for full-time employees,

• -2.7% for part-time employees (meaning women tended to be paid more than men),

• 15.4% for all employees. The gender pay gap for all employees is larger than either the full-time or part-time pay gaps.

This is because a much higher share of women than men are employed part-time and part-time workers tend to earn less per hour than those working full-time.

So a difference of £652 a week, to £558 - £94 a week. Hardly a ringing endorsement for "men should pay".

‘There is no evidence for women being paid less than men for doing the same job (contrary to reports).’

hahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahhahahaha and fucking ha.
it’s called the gender pay gap, and it exists. And anyone moronic ( or male enough) to drag out the equal pay act when even companies now say it exists and it’s an issue

Sorry @ofHardey, I hadn't read your post, I must have picked it up when it was quoted on another post and all I saw is what I quoted. Please accept my apologies, a reminder to look up the original thread in future.

Source?

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06838/SN06838.pdf

I think what you're describing is the norm for most people. Certainly the 20s men I know, my DSs included, think this way.
I think you get extremes on both sides. Women who never expect to pay for anything, and men who are so frightened of being taken for granted that never want to pay for anything either.
In the real world, decent generous people who like each other work it out.

Thanks @AhNowTed

I'm definitely not getting into the gender pay gap but you're right. Even a 15% difference in pay isn't a compelling argument for "men should pay".

Wholeheartedly agree.

20-somethings have it sussed far better than a lot of my generation.

Found out today I'm Generation X 😀

@AhNowTed thats a joke right?

not that it has anything to do with an expectation of men paying for a first date.
nothings free. And I seriously would not want my kids, not that I think they will anyway, having an expectation that a man should pay for everything on a date.

What's a joke?

Crikey what have I missed? More talk of my druggie ex I see! @GloriousGlory so which am
I, a downtrodden girlfriend of an abusive druggie or an entitled Pwincess who expects to be lavished with carbonaras and half a bottle of wine? I can’t keep up with your mad accusations!

I thought you said it was pizza?