Is this a reasonable rule in dating?

Women don't want to be used for sex, so to avoid been used for money, men shouldn't pay for expensive dates and keep things inexpensive, until the girls true character can be confirmed.

What are your thoughts on this?

0|1
1012

Most Helpful Guy

  • Any time that you get concerned about money in dating, there is the risk that a girl will perceive you as being cheap or selfish/not generous. I think it is reasonable to keep dates in the inexpensive side, particularly when you are younger and not "rolling in the dough," and save the more upscale dates for when you think that things are starting to get serious. But I would avoid asking a lady to pay for her share of a date.

    You may occasionally get used, but that is fairly insignificant. If it happens, a girl has revealed her true colors and you know to move on to the next contestant.

    0|1
    0|0

Most Helpful Girl

  • I agree and I think it’s smart. If she’s gonna throw a fit because you’re being frugal with your money and not throwing all your dimes at her feet, that’s a good sign you need to run very very far away:

    1|3
    1|0

Recommended Questions

Loading...

Have an opinion?

What Girls & Guys Said

911
  • In principle, I completely agree with that rule.

    In real life, I have broken it many times for a variety of reasons. For example there have been times when I felt pressured to foot the bill simply because that girl wouldn't have given me a chance for a second date if I hadn't done so.
    Other times, I chose to pay for the girl because I believed to have already figured out her character (and determined it to be good).
    And yet other times, I covered the girl's costs simply because I wanted to, because I had a genuinely great time and because I wanted to be a gentleman.

    On my very first (real) date with my wife, it was a mix of these three factors. I really enjoyed the evening and wanted to show that by paying for her dinner. I also thought she was such a great girl and wanted to be kind to her... maybe even show some "love". Paying for her dinner was meant like a sweet gift. And last but not least, I had met her a few times before and had already developed a big crush on her. I knew that this was something very special and I was paranoid about fucking it up. So, I chose to jump over any hurdle it would take to get her to fall in love with me. Looking back, that was probably not necessary... though she did tell me the other day that paying for her dinner on that evening earned me extra cookie points.

    So, it's really a tricky issue. I think we all have our beliefs and convictions but whether we always stick to them out in the real world is an entirely different question.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I don't feel it's the worst rule I've ever seen suggested.

    Most girls would be OK with this, too, I suspect. The whole gold digger nonsense exists, but isn't anything like as common as some G@G guys apparently believe...

    2|1
    0|0
    • agreed and the overblown importance of male height, like you need to be 6ft+ to be successful with women

  • There’s two ways of looking at this.

    - On the one hand yeah, a lot of girls need to prove themselves to be worthy of big gestures.
    - On the other hand you can say that you need throw out quality bait to land the big catch.

    Back in the good old days, you pre screened women before dating them, so the second option was much more prevalent.

    0|1
    0|0
  • That's common sense for me, I never understand men who spend thousand of money on date and complain that girls only like them for money...
    To a lot of women in my country that's rather insulting if the guys spend too much on them without knowing them, they feel like the want to "buy" them. And that sadly happen a lot, the guy pay for everything and expect sex if not he become violent and insult them.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Personally I don’t allow anyone to pay for me until we’re in a committed relationship and I’m sure he’s not a piece of shite.

    1|1
    1|0
  • LOL! You have an interesting observation that I classified as "emotional lose-lose".

    In today's society, entering a relationship is like gambling. No matter what card you holds, you stand some chance to win, and some chance to lose.

    But if the couple don't take their chance and prepared to lose, a committed relationship is impossible.

    I had another observation: before tying the knot, the couple draft a deed about material share should they divorce.

    While many said it's for their protection, I found it disturbing: they already prepare for a divorce before they get married. So how long will that commitment last?

    Same with your question. If individuals are so calculative, then the man made her a whore, paying for sex with material things; and the woman made him a Player, giving him sex just to keep him.

    So my thought is: if you're dating, be generous with each other. Love, trust and be faithful. Only with these attributes can love be discovered.

    0|1
    0|1
    • Why would you be generous and why are you obligated to trust someone who is a stranger and who you know almost nothing about? He’s describing a situation between strangers who are romantically interested in each other, and in that situation, caution like he described is necessary.

    • Show All
    • No one is expected to give the expression of love when you don’t even know the person. Learn about someone before you invest everything in them, that’s just the smart thing to do. Do you think I should go and sleep with and lose my virginity to a man who I’ve only been mildly romantically interested in for a week or two? Absolutely not, that’s ridiculous. Same concept here.

    • @CarpetDenim oh No, definitely not sex. But some form of material and emotional "investment" is necessary.

      If there is a failed relationship but none of you feel hurt, then i think nothing has started.

      (But of course it'll be unwise to invest so such that the hurt is so great that you can't move on in life.)

  • Yeah, its reasonable, its not a big deal if yiu don't make a big deal out of it

    0|1
    0|0
  • That's common sense. Im of the idea that the first few dates should be cheap or free and then go dutch forever.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Sort of.

    You shouldn't spend money on expensive dates to impress women, period. Spend what's a comfortable level for you. If you're rich and would rather pay for an expensive restaurant because that's what you want to eat, go for it, but recognize you're dropping the money for your own enjoyment and she just happens to be along for the ride.

    Honestly, some women are indeed gold diggers, but most aren't. Most -are- impressed by men who are powerful and successful. But those men aren't impressive because they try to buy women's attention. You'll impress women more in a modest place where you're treating the service well and totally relaxed about the bill then you would in an expensive place where your manner shows you're feeling the financial hit.

    0|1
    0|0
  • There is no such thing as a free meal. Pun intended

    0|1
    0|0
  • Well duh. :)

    In reality it all depends on how rich the guy is. Expensive to one may not be to another. Women don't like to be lavished on because it makes them feel obligated for sex. So yeah, it's best to have a simple conversation early on, like over coffee, and determine whether they're actually worth dating, whether there's attraction or not. If not, then move on. If so then set another time to meet up and share time, get to know. This is the purpose of DATING - to get to know the other person. :)

    0|1
    0|0
  • This is a reasonable rule

    1|1
    0|0
  • Sure, I don't see why that's unreasonable?

    0|1
    0|0
  • Fair deal for most except a gold digger

    1|1
    0|0
  • I think it's fine lol

    1|1
    1|0
  • Yes i think it's reasonable rule in dating.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Sounds smart to me

    0|1
    1|0
  • Sure I don't know

    0|1
    0|0
  • It's fair but women won't like it

    0|1
    0|0

Recommended myTakes

Loading...