<p>^ Word. Agreed :D.</p>
<p>The way I look at it, men paying for women started when women didn't earn. Women earn now. It's not "gentlemanly" to pay. It's saying women are weaker economically / socially than you, and you need to look after them. Which you don't. It's offensive. Thus, I will NOT let a guy pay anytime.</p>
<p>"I'm a girl, and I would NOT let the guy pay on any date."
Same.</p>
<p>I think (hope?) goat4d was joking?</p>
<p>^ Agreed, although I think that there is nothing offensive about a man offering to pay if it's the first date or he is the one who asked the woman out. She can always decline and contribute if she wants to do so and thinks that it is appropriate.</p>
<p>I think equality is best in terms of conditions -- this should not be a matter of gender. If you called for the date, be prepared to pay for the whole thing (also for additional kind gesture). You can't go wrong by doing this.</p>
<p>Hhahah, it's funny hearing nerds debating this :D</p>
<p>Truth is, for attractive women, you get THEM to pay. It's called Cat-String theory. Especially applies to college-adult women. The attractive women are used to people having crushes on them, hitting on them, giving them free stuff, so they're accustomed to it.</p>
<p>Now, instead of falling into the category of "desperate guy trying to pay his way into your pants" the Venusian Artist, a man among boys, will reverse psychology the situation and demonstrate higher value to himself. In turn, he dares the woman to pay FOR HIM. Since he is the higher valued person, she QUALIFIES to him.</p>
<p>It's like a cat that tries to chase a feather. When the feather is on the floor, easy to grab, the cat doesn't move. When the feather is moving and teasing the cat, it tries to grab onto it for the challenge, because the feather is hard to obtain, adding value to it.</p>
<p>This is a concept used a lot in both Marketing and PUA-ing. :) Just saw the responses on this thread and I wanted to save the guys some $$$ hahahah.</p>
<p>I hate people like goat4d.</p>
<p>so closed-minded :/</p>
<p>radronOmega,</p>
<p>I'll think I'll be adding your type to my list of men to advise my daughter to avoid. Good luck finding a genuinely nice woman. You'll need it.</p>
<p>gbesq: Not necessarily. He refers to people who are used to/expect people to fawn over them and pay their way all the time because they're in high demand since everyone wants to get in their pants.</p>
<p>For one such example, in high school, there was this girl who everyone wanted because she was insanely hot. Thing is, most guys tend to brute force it and it never works. Call them beautiful, buy them things, etc... they're used to it in spades, so nobody ever stands out. Everyone ends up wasting resources in hopes of "being the exception."</p>
<p>However, guess who actually got with the hot girl? By acting contrary to her expectations, by acting like someone who wasn't going to fall into her "beauty trap" by just giving her free stuff, you stand out to them as someone worth chasing. After a while, it becomes very obvious they are after you.</p>
<p>Regardless I wouldn't advocate this strategy as a very universally-acceptable one for finding good girls. This only applies if you want the hot girl everyone wants to bang. Sad truth.</p>
<p>like i said women belong at home raising children and tending to the family and home. They have no business in the work force. This is not to be sexist, but if you look at the majority of jews and Asians who are at the top of what they do, they are at the top because they follow this very structure. Why are jewish children so darn successful, the reason is in the structure of the family. Its been proven.</p>
<p>I say 50/50 pay. Sometimes the guy pays everything and sometimes the girl pay everything.</p>
<p>I was raised//believe that a guy should pay..but if we go to a movie or something I have no problem paying like for the popcorn/drinks if he payed for the tickets..</p>
<p>on the otherhand the fact that i'm home on a saturday night without a date is something that i should be worried about lol.</p>
<p>oh and to goat4d what kind of crap is that, my parents are both very successful and my mom has managed to have a career and take care of things at home..if anything she does a lot more than some stay at home moms that I know. I think it's all a matter of priority and the woman. I just know that I will NOT be at home. I can have a career and a family too, no matter how much my husband makes..</p>
<p>I say the guy pays -- at least for the first few dates -- unless, of course the date is going horribly in which case the girl should offer to pay. Afterwards, going Dutch wouldn't be bad.</p>
<p>"unless, of course the date is going horribly in which case the girl should offer to pay."</p>
<p>i don't see the logic? if the date is going horribly, how does that mean that the girl should pay?</p>
<p>Perhaps what Taggart meant to say is that the person who is screwing up the date and making it go badly should pay. Maybe we're on to something here! :-)</p>
<p>Date,</p>
<p>Man Buys Steak, Woman Cooks it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i don't see the logic? if the date is going horribly, how does that mean that the girl should pay?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If the (first) date is going horribly for the girl, I think she should offer at least to pay to get rid of feeling as if she owes him anything. Perhaps I'm the only one who functions that way.</p>
<p>^ I guess that Taggart's reply is part of the reason that I feel a 50/50 split is best. I usually pay for the first or even the second date, as a courtesy, and normally because I'm the one requesting the date. After that, however, I think going Dutch is better because I don't want the woman who I'm dating to feel that she "owes" me anything in return for dinner, etc. I also don't like the undercurrent that comes with a man always paying that conveys that he "expects" something in return. In addition to all of that, I think that TheOneCurlyFry got it right when she answered the original post:</p>
<p>"The way I look at it, men paying for women started when women didn't earn. Women earn now. It's not "gentlemanly" to pay. It's saying women are weaker economically / socially than you, and you need to look after them. Which you don't. It's offensive. Thus, I will NOT let a guy pay anytime."</p>
<p>I pay for myself. I have my own job and my own money and I don't need men paying for me. I expect him to pay for his share, and I'll pay for my own.</p>
<p>You guys, this topic looks like it was ripped out of 1950.</p>
<p>What's wrong with a girl paying, especially if she initiated the date? The person who asks the other out should pay, but that can mean a guy or a girl.</p>
<p>Why are guys so bothered by girls paying? It's kind of chauvanistic to say a girl can't pay, since it's an expression of power over her.</p>
<p>After all, is there any difference between "girl" and "boy" money?</p>
<p>Actually Nutmeg, I think most of the posters (including me, the OP), agree with you. But we have a few holdouts, most notably goat4d, who evidently think that the 50s were a good gig.</p>