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

@AhNowTed yes, I appreciate that, I addressed that in my initial post.

As in, if I were back into the dating scene, I would expect the man to pay, because a man that wanted to split the bill, is not suggesting he is the type of man who would go on to then form the set up DH and I both have.

If the man asked to split the bill, right from date one, I would think we were incompatible for the long term and wouldn't waste his time, or mine, pursuing anything further.

I find it really strange that people see this as grabby, or that I'm too feeble to pay my own way. It's none of that. It's just personal preference.

Something that struck a chord above, was a PP asking another PP (who also believed men should pay on date one) "Have you no pride?" Well. I guess that's all dependent on your values. I'm very proud of lots of things in my life. I wouldn't feel any pride in simply paying my half of a dinner bill, or any less of a person because my date had treated me. I find it really quite rude to suggest if a man treats you, you have no pride. That's the equivalent of me saying, "Your boyfriend does the laundry?...Have you no pride?" Not only rude, but miles off the mark.

My DH pays for dinner, because that suits us. Someone else's DH might do all the cooking, because that suits them. Different strokes for different folks.

And first dates at that. Why on earth are people bringing long term relationships and married life into it?

Talking about red flags, I've always been wary of men who go in for ceremonious sexist courtesy and I think paying the bill on the first date could come under that title.

I'd be embarrassed to have your "values"

Why should a man that is not the father of these children, pay towards the choices that the woman has made?
As to you finding my post offensive, well that's on you.

Incredibly offensive.

If you asked DH if I was a free loader, he would laugh his socks off. I work incredibly hard each day - it's just not paid work. This does not mean it has no value. He frequently says how there's no way he could do what I do, and how appreciative he is.

And this works for us.

A guy like DH is not going to be the guy who wants to split the bill on the first date. PP is correct that dating is indicative of how a relationship may be expected to progress. It all depends on what set up you are comfortable with and suits your values.

What's not ok is making derogatory remarks because someone else's lived experience that they are happy with, does not suit your own personal ideals.

If you find pointing out the hypocrisy of others opinions offensive then that too is on you.

(sigh, repeats for the third time...)

YES I am aware we are talking about a first date. Behaviour then, (or date two, three...) would be suggestive of how the person will continue to act in a relationship. That's the whole point of the date, to suss out if this is a potential partner.

So, if you ideally want to be in a relationship, and it's important to you that all finances are equally split, then you aren't going to want to be with the guy who wants to pay all the time. Which is fine.

And vice versa. Which is also fine.

Yeah the man but be worried about you being a gold digger in the future with that attitude.

It’s not hypocrisy when women and men look for different things in a relationship, per @TwinsAndTiramisu

Except you haven't pointed out any hypocrisy.

Just called people freeloaders. And that, is "on you"

If I were a man who found himself taking out a woman who expected him to foot the bill for the first date, I wouldn't be inviting her on a second one.

Still no rational explanation.

@TwinsAndTiramisu if he's expected to pay on every single date, it's no longer him "treating" you. He's just being used.

Again, 2 mid-twenties on minimum wage. You'd expect the poor bloke to pay because...?

Yanbu- it's polite and what I expect. Sadly didn't happen and I married him. Lived to regret!

Yes. A man who goes through the bill with a fine-tooth comb to apportion everything is a tedious skinflint.

A man who insists on going halves after gorging himself on steak and champagne is a CF.

A man who insists on ALWAYS paying for you is probably a controlling misogynist.

The preferred situation is someone who is generous enough to offer to pay, but has the humility to accept that the other person is an independent adult in their own right, who should be allowed their chance to do the treating.

i would have said the same Op, not now though. On DP & my first date he suggested we split the bill. As time has passed he’s shown himself to be incredibly kind & generous, as he can afford to be. His wanting to split the bill on our first date was a sign that he is sensible with his money & lives within his means. Something I am very grateful for, after being with an incredibly spendy person, who would flash the cash whilst himself into loads of debt.

I actually pointed out that saying that a man that didn't pay is a red flag could also be said of the woman that didn't pay. Just like many others.

Just because I used language that you didn't like, doesn't mean that its not hypocrisy to say its a red flag for one and not the other.

Bringing in a hypothetical marriage and children when talking about a first date stretches the bounds of reasoning. Especially when it should be up to the two people involved to set the boundaries of the relationship should it get that far.

Unless I'm financially paying for half a steak, I'm potentially a golddigger. Do you even see how daft that sounds?

I think a history of big payout divorce settlements, or demands for diamond bracelets, or extravagant shopping sprees is a worry. Not half a panna cotta.

Ironically, it seems those most strongly advocating how this is "freeloading" or "gold digging" are the ones who can't see beyond money. Do you get that it's not remotely about being incapable of paying, or grabbing a free ride? It's about long term values that will be within your relationship.

I don't consider "long term values" relevant to a first date. I think they become apparent as a relationship grows.

@TwinsAndTiramisu

The beautiful irony of you stating that those of us wanting an equal footing "can't see beyond money", while you keep your purse firmly shut.

Because.... values!

OMG.

He has a penis!

Obs!

TwinsAndTiramisu

I actually see going Dutch as setting the first of the boundaries in a relationship, In that it means that both people are equal and expect to play an equal part in the relationship.

And as I posted the rest should be sorted by the couple as the relationship grows.

I would prefer him to pay, most definitely. Just because I am old fashioned and like the idea.

However, if t turned out that I had no intention of seeing him again then I would insist on splitting the bill.

@TwinsAndTiramisu you're not potentially a gold digger

You are a gold digger!

It stretches the bounds of your reasoning to think that dating could lead to not only a relationship, but marriage, and children? People date for that very reason.

I haven't said a man not paying is a red flag at all?

To be clear. A man not paying would suggest to me that he had incompatible long term values to ME. To the next woman, he might be ideal.