I hear this from women all the time, so with all due respect, allow me to explain why I think this is a logical fallacy. First for definition: a logical fallacy is a premise that appears sound and reasonable, but it basically flawed. Any argument built on that premise will be equally flawed.
Your premise, I presume, is that "men who pay for a date might have an expectation to be entitled to "sex. By paying for my share of the date, it vacates this possible expectation in the mind of the man". That premise - is invalid and here's why. You presume there are 3 types of men for this example: 1) A man who expects sexual favors or other entitlements IF he pays for a date 2) A man who expects nothing if he pays for the date 3) A man who "would have expected something if he paid, but no longer would if you paid half OR all of it
But there is a 4th kind: The man who expects something no matter WHAT happens or who pays, and in reality, that man and man #3 are the same man. That man will not be deterred by a woman paying her share, but will only think "ok, cool you saved me some money, how about my entitlement anyway?"
So to be clear, paying for your own share is something a woman might do to make make herself feel better, but unless you've chosen a man who is TRULY guy #2, it really has NO effect on his thinking. It's all for your own peace of mind, but it won't alter his thought process one bit if he's the wrong guy to start out with.
First, thank you for talking to me like I'm stupid by defining basic vocabulary for me. Second, yes, I am aware that it might not change someone's expectation, but it changes whether or not someone uses that argument to try and convince me I "owe" them something. I had a guy early on before I learned not let the guy pay tell me I "owe some head" for him taking me out. There is at least some logic rooted in the argument that paying makes it such that I owe something in return, even if I wouldn't let that convince me. That discussion went on for several minutes with it all coming back to 'but you owe me' which some guys view as irrefutable. After splitting every first date since, I've never had a guy attempt to use that as an argument. They've asked and wanted it but there is no longer any logic-based argument that I "owe" them anything and the request being rejected has gone much smoother any time it came up since. There's never been a forceful attempt to persuade me by holding that over my head. It has fundamentally changed the way the guy broaches the subject and that makes a big difference. Maybe that's just luck, but if it's working, I'll stick with it. If you'd like to quibble with my initial answer by taking it in the most literal way possible based on the fact that some might feel entitled either way, then allow me to phrase my answer as "Always split so they don't have any logic-based argument why they're entitled to something and so it's easier for them to accept a no".
I wasn't talking to you as if you were stupid, but I see you interpreted it that way. I chose to be specific about defining my terms so there'd be nothing left to chance. If that experience works for you, great, but I'd wager (and there's no way of really knowing), that you had chosen wisely and those guys were #2's to begin with.
This here " "Always split so they don't have any logic-based argument why they're entitled to something" ... only exemplifies my point. There was NEVER a logic-base to begin with! There's zero "logic" to the idea that "I paid, therefore you owe me sex". That, in and of itself, is another great example of a "logical fallacy" in the mind of the man who thinks that way.
I don't believe in luck, so I think you're probably better at picking the #2 guys than you give yourself credit for. Happy hunting.
I'll side on me paying first most of the time. It's not because of being monetarily secure. But also if I go out on a date during a business trip, the meal cost is reimbursable :)
@yulbsari there are “free” backyard dates that people can set up. But im specifically saying that if you’re looking to go out, its unfair to expect someone to cover your fees. So people shouldn't go out on dates unless they can afford it themselves
I say that the one who asks to go out should pay for the date I guess. Also if that person doesn't have enough then, they can split the bill and pitch in or pay for their own food.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
49Opinion
Whoever asks for the date. But typically since the man asks the man should pay.
Always split for me so nobody thinks they're entitled to anything after.
I hear this from women all the time, so with all due respect, allow me to explain why I think this is a logical fallacy. First for definition: a logical fallacy is a premise that appears sound and reasonable, but it basically flawed. Any argument built on that premise will be equally flawed.
Your premise, I presume, is that "men who pay for a date might have an expectation to be entitled to "sex. By paying for my share of the date, it vacates this possible expectation in the mind of the man". That premise - is invalid and here's why. You presume there are 3 types of men for this example:
1) A man who expects sexual favors or other entitlements IF he pays for a date
2) A man who expects nothing if he pays for the date
3) A man who "would have expected something if he paid, but no longer would if you paid half OR all of it
But there is a 4th kind: The man who expects something no matter WHAT happens or who pays, and in reality, that man and man #3 are the same man. That man will not be deterred by a woman paying her share, but will only think "ok, cool you saved me some money, how about my entitlement anyway?"
So to be clear, paying for your own share is something a woman might do to make make herself feel better, but unless you've chosen a man who is TRULY guy #2, it really has NO effect on his thinking. It's all for your own peace of mind, but it won't alter his thought process one bit if he's the wrong guy to start out with.
First, thank you for talking to me like I'm stupid by defining basic vocabulary for me. Second, yes, I am aware that it might not change someone's expectation, but it changes whether or not someone uses that argument to try and convince me I "owe" them something. I had a guy early on before I learned not let the guy pay tell me I "owe some head" for him taking me out. There is at least some logic rooted in the argument that paying makes it such that I owe something in return, even if I wouldn't let that convince me. That discussion went on for several minutes with it all coming back to 'but you owe me' which some guys view as irrefutable. After splitting every first date since, I've never had a guy attempt to use that as an argument. They've asked and wanted it but there is no longer any logic-based argument that I "owe" them anything and the request being rejected has gone much smoother any time it came up since. There's never been a forceful attempt to persuade me by holding that over my head. It has fundamentally changed the way the guy broaches the subject and that makes a big difference. Maybe that's just luck, but if it's working, I'll stick with it. If you'd like to quibble with my initial answer by taking it in the most literal way possible based on the fact that some might feel entitled either way, then allow me to phrase my answer as "Always split so they don't have any logic-based argument why they're entitled to something and so it's easier for them to accept a no".
I wasn't talking to you as if you were stupid, but I see you interpreted it that way. I chose to be specific about defining my terms so there'd be nothing left to chance. If that experience works for you, great, but I'd wager (and there's no way of really knowing), that you had chosen wisely and those guys were #2's to begin with.
This here " "Always split so they don't have any logic-based argument why they're entitled to something" ... only exemplifies my point. There was NEVER a logic-base to begin with! There's zero "logic" to the idea that "I paid, therefore you owe me sex". That, in and of itself, is another great example of a "logical fallacy" in the mind of the man who thinks that way.
I don't believe in luck, so I think you're probably better at picking the #2 guys than you give yourself credit for. Happy hunting.
I prefer to split the bill but if it has to be one or the other, whoever does the asking out should pay
I'll side on me paying first most of the time. It's not because of being monetarily secure. But also if I go out on a date during a business trip, the meal cost is reimbursable :)
in my culture men pay even first and later. if she insists to pay then i would say "if you want" kuz series hannah montana had a story about that
Whoever initiates the date pays. But, it would be gentlemanly of the guy to offer to pay, if we’re going off of traditional values.
Usually it is whoever does the asking.
Everyone should pay for themselves. If you can't afford the date then dont date
So, what should people without money do?
@yulbsari as i said above, if they can't afford the date, they shouldn't go out on dates
Wow... sounds harsh! So, only people with money are allowed to date?
@yulbsari there are “free” backyard dates that people can set up. But im specifically saying that if you’re looking to go out, its unfair to expect someone to cover your fees. So people shouldn't go out on dates unless they can afford it themselves
I say that the one who asks to go out should pay for the date I guess. Also if that person doesn't have enough then, they can split the bill and pitch in or pay for their own food.
If you're taking me out, you're paying. If I'm taking you out, I'm paying.
The person who asked the other out. If the guy asks he should expect to cover the bill, and visa versa.
Unless I am really liking the person, we go dutch.
Otherwise, it's first to the bill.
I typically do just because I can easily afford to.
I'm Dutch and, unless it is clear who will pay beforehand, going Dutch is the way to go.
Each one should pay for himself, maybe unless one of them is very poor and unable to pay.
split the bill or take turns. If a guy instead on paying for the date, it's not like I didn't offer.
Guys should ask out and pay. I would never make a dinner date a first date. Coffee dates only for a first date.
Men should pay for the first date.
The Man because that is one the meanings of being a Gentleman.
As Curtis Jackson once said: " Who's idea it was to go on a date".