Stories of stingiest first dates

[frtedsbed]

Just comparing experiences here at a friends ... jaw dropping stuff!

Mine asked me to transfer money for a coffee and cake after our first date which was a walk and feeding the ducks.
I thought we were going for lunch ... that was the original invite.
Another asked me to transfer money to r a takeaway having offered to pay for my child and I , as he stayed at mine every weekend. Both ended there and then !

I had that conversation on here once. It was January and I said I really wouldn't want to walk around in the cold wind, turning red and frizzy haired, going nowhere in a place I see all the time. Someone said she loved walks as the first date because she was so tall, slim and beautiful that winter wind couldn't ruin her, and she lived in an endlessly fascinating place that she could happily walk round all day.

Great.

I'm not talking about attraction. I assume anyone who agrees to a date with someone else is attracted to how they look, otherwise why are they even there. It's not possible to know whether you actually care about the other person until you actually get to know them over time, and this applies to men as well as women.

Nobody is suggesting that that first date drink is a sign of perfect compatibility in all levels. If only relationships were so simple.

But it's a sign that he's interested to keep seeing you at present. I can't help but feel that you're deliberately overcomplicating it to try to escape the pretty universal real world reality that a man who wants to see more of you won't resent buying you a drink. He may give it up if he gets the impression that you feel really strongly about buying it yourself, but he won't begrudge it.

I would imagine said walk would not be strolling around the block in the rain dodging wheelie bins but somewhere a bit more scenic and uplifting? It's interesting as 'going for a walk' is often suggested on here as a low cost alternative as a get to know you first date yet others on this thread have suggested that if a bloke can't afford to pay for a date then he should not be dating anyway which seems a bit harsh. I have been on a walking date, in fairness it was a third date, we had established we were both outdoorsy, it involved a scenic meadow stroll in the sunshine that lasted a couple of hours before finishing in a country pub. It was actually a lovely afternoon out and a great opportunity to really talk to someone.

I agree. I had one guy ask me on a first date walking his dogs - that’s a hard no from me!

I personally hate dinner dates. I can’t think of anything worse than sitting having dinner with a stranger with eating getting in the way of conversation.

Just a simple drink or coffee meet is my preference. It doesn’t have to be as complicated as some of these posts are making out.

The walk involved strolling around the city after they turned what would have been a coffee date into a walking date. So that wasn't scenic and uplifting.

Not all walking dates are the same. A good walking date has to involve good weather and a roughly planned route of actual interest (whether nature, scenery, history or architecture). In that case in can be perfectly pleasant and there's good opportunity to actually talk to someone in a relaxed setting. Hard no to walks in the winter though, or aimless unplanned walks.

Fair enough, that does sound rubbish.😂

Women are also far more likely to fall in love with a casual sexual partner because they generally get more emotionally attached than men do

I wish someone would tell the men that. They seem to declare their love far too quickly IME.

I think they might be declaring their love to get something in return if you see what I mean.

20-something me is also confused by that, given the number of casual flings and one night stands I had. I fell in love with none of them!

This it's about forethought and effort.

I'm more likely to fuck them if they're not declaring their love. Usually we have already been to bed. I'm fine with casual sex. I'm not so fine about them talking about love when we've only met 4 times.

A lot of women reported that many "walking dates" were designed to be close to the man's house and the men often said that they could "see where they end up".

That doesn't surprise me. Yet women continue to accept this nonsense.

Just because YOU and many others do that it doesn’t mean it’s universal. A lot of women, including me, need some kind of bond before sex is even a consideration, and if they do have sex casually, it’s the woman who will most likely become attached.

You’re taking everything I’m saying as applicable to every situation. It’s not, there are other variables etc, but it’s generally true. I don’t mean I need to be head over heels in love, but I can’t just do casual sex. A lot of women are the same and it’s not to do with societal expectations in 2024.

I'm not denying that you and others feel like that. You seem to think any women who can do casual sex are aberrations of nature, given that you're presenting your own experience as the biological norm. Shame on us hussies for not doing femininity correctly, I suppose? Takes me right back to my strict religious upbringing, except this replaces God with faux-science.

I would hope that someone who liked my picture enough to go on a date with me would be sexually attracted to me. "Men wanting sex" is not deviant behaviour, it's what I'd hope for in a relationship or even just a fling. If I don't feel like having sex it's pretty easy to "see where I end up" and to then end up on the tube back to my house.

No I didn’t say that. I don’t care who likes casual sex and what others do with their lives is their choice, but the point being is that even though society has changed and more women do casual sex now, it’s still a biological rule that if a man wants a serious relationship, he needs to compete against other men and show why he stands out above them, in whatever way that might be, because women who want a serious relationship will be wanting him to show why they should pick him.

It’s just how we work, and it can’t be controlled just because you’re saying it’s not relevant now, it is, it’s in our brain wiring. Women are the choosers, men aren’t so picky. It’s you who is seemingly deliberately choosing not to understand something that’s perfectly clear.

I'm saying it's not how we work, and it's not how my brain is wired. And based on all the conversations I've had with men and women I don't believe "men aren't picky" and "women are the choosers" are biological rules either. I don't really know why you're so insistent on extrapolating your experience to all women and all men.

Ok

@gannett where have I said, in any of my comments, it’s about ALL women and ALL men? Not once. That’s you taking that from what I’m saying because you’re choosing to just to be argumentative and deliberately disingenuous. I’ve said all along that they are rules of thumb. Sex is far more costly for women so they have to choose wisely, where as men don’t get so attached and are prone to upping and leaving when they like.

Now I’m convinced you do know what I’m saying and pretending you don’t.

It’s not about ‘doing femininity correctly’ it’s about not being stupid and risking pregnancy and STIs over some guy you’re not even romantically interested in.

"Biological rule" - your words - implies all women (aside from aberrant exceptions), does it not?

Men don't get emotionally attached? Sorry you've not met the ones who do.

What a load of nonsense. Women are no more the pickers than men are. Why do you think so many women on these boards have ended up with complete shits for partners?