The Student Room Group

Who should pay on the first date?

Scroll to see replies

<£10 = I pay

£10< = Split dat **** mayne
Pay for yourself. He pays for himself. Be the man. F a breadwinner. Ill be the breadwinner of myself for life. F letting a guy pay for you ew
Original post by WoodyMKC
I'd hate to set a precedent by paying for it all. If you do that, they think you're gonna be one of those "he pays for everything" boyfriends. Always split.


See, I actually don't agree with this. I find it really sexy and appealing when a guy offers to pay on the first few dates. However when in a relationship I'm all about it being equal (or, you pay this time, I pay next time etc.) BUT - I never let the guy pay for everything on a date as I'd feel a bit bad. So, if we went for a meal and he paid for that I'd then get a few rounds of drinks etc.
Generally I think the person whose idea it was should offer to pay- if you approach someone and ask them to go out with you, then it's cute to treat them. Plus if you decide where you're going then you can pick something you can afford. But if you offer and your date still wants to split it/pay for both of you, then let them.

Tbh though it doesn't really matter, as long as no one's blatantly taking advantage and no sexist stereotypes are involved. Just use common sense.
Original post by Profesh
How do you manage to spew dogmatic platitudes with such unerring consistency? Not that I'm complaining; it makes you far easier to ignore when I can be categorically certain that nothing you say will ever amount to even a modicum of genuine insight.


such a beautiful rebuttal.
literally, i'm always amazed by your command of the english vocabulary; and make a formal request for you to enlighten me of your ways. they would be much needed for fools in the future.

Original post by Proxenus
<£10 = I pay

£10< = Split dat **** mayne


....
have you even got a tenner? (and no. those five pounds you flashed in the chem.eng. G.C last semester.. don't count -_-)
Original post by Precious Illusions
See, I actually don't agree with this. I find it really sexy and appealing when a guy offers to pay on the first few dates. However when in a relationship I'm all about it being equal (or, you pay this time, I pay next time etc.) BUT - I never let the guy pay for everything on a date as I'd feel a bit bad. So, if we went for a meal and he paid for that I'd then get a few rounds of drinks etc.


Sounds fine to me :smile: Thing is, in the past I've paid for dinner and stuff and before you know it they just come to expect you to pay for everything. Certainly doesn't apply to everyone of course, but as I say I just think it's better to avoid setting a precedent as there's no way of knowing.
Original post by Profesh
Precisely.


whilst that may be so; i challenge your way of thinking with this:

wouldn't you find it a bit steered financially towards the female sex, considering that most females nowadays rarely - if ever - ask the guys out? surely, wouldn't that be a loop-hole we see them exploit day in and out?

as using this same logic, it surely follows that seeing as the man is the one to propose, and as he is the one to get down on knees; therefore the woman is his 'guest' and he's the head of the house.. seeing as she didn't put in any work in getting down on the knee/initiating a new part of their relationship towards the other.

Explanation: *as the guy asks the female on the date most of the time, and you suggest that he pays all of the time (except on the rare occasion that the lady actually suggests and actually carries out splitting the cost rather than faking it to look savvy); he therefore is the one to initiate the next part of their relationship towards the other - the dating part. Hypothetically speaking, as he initiates this next part, and she is the guest, surely (if they get there) by his initiating the next part (marriage) as well; it follows logically that the woman remains the guest for the duration of the relationship (i.e. marriage) and she retains that 'guest' title. Meaning, she'd have no say in the relationship. This is because as by his initiating and asking the girl out for drinks, it follows (usually by pre-teen girls) in this same fantasy, that the man be the one to pull the chair out, order on the girls behalf, open her doors as she arrives; put his coat on the floor for her to walk through, grabs her coat - in short, he is the one in charge of everything and anything and she's just there for the ride/a 'guest' as you claim. not much dissimilar to his position in a 19th century household; i.e. a view that should have been abandoned years ago*.
Original post by Proxenus
<£10 = I pay

£10< = Split dat **** mayne


Where do you go that costs less than a tenner for two people to eat? Even McDonalds charge over £5 for a Big Mac meal
Original post by xobeauty
Looooollllllllllllllll.



Whoever asked for a date pays. It's nice to keep a lil tradition but feminists ****ed it up so goodbye to the gentlemen days.


Perfect. :wink:
Original post by Profesh
How do you manage to spew dogmatic platitudes with such unerring consistency? Not that I'm complaining; it makes you far easier to ignore when I can be categorically certain that nothing you say will ever amount to even a modicum of genuine insight.


I actually understand this.
Original post by theDanIdentity
whilst that may be so; i challenge your way of thinking with this:

wouldn't you find it a bit steered financially towards the female sex, considering that most females nowadays rarely - if ever - ask the guys out? surely, wouldn't that be a loop-hole we see them exploit day in and out?

as using this same logic, it surely follows that seeing as the man is the one to propose, and as he is the one to get down on knees; therefore the woman is his 'guest' and he's the head of the house.. seeing as she didn't put in any work in getting down on the knee/initiating a new part of their relationship towards the other.

Explanation: *as the guy asks the female on the date most of the time, and you suggest that he pays all of the time (except on the rare occasion that the lady actually suggests and actually carries out splitting the cost rather than faking it to look savvy); he therefore is the one to initiate the next part of their relationship towards the other - the dating part. Hypothetically speaking, as he initiates this next part, and she is the guest, surely (if they get there) by his initiating the next part (marriage) as well; it follows logically that the woman remains the guest for the duration of the relationship (i.e. marriage) and she retains that 'guest' title. Meaning, she'd have no say in the relationship. This is because as by his initiating and asking the girl out for drinks, it follows (usually by pre-teen girls) in this same fantasy, that the man be the one to pull the chair out, order on the girls behalf, open her doors as she arrives; put his coat on the floor for her to walk through, grabs her coat - in short, he is the one in charge of everything and anything and she's just there for the ride/a 'guest' as you claim. not much dissimilar to his position in a 19th century household; i.e. a view that should have been abandoned years ago*.


...So what are you saying? That females should ask us out more so they can pay? Whoever suggests the place or date pays. Simple.
Two answers.

The bill should be split because thats what two equal strangers should do, split the bill in half

However the second answer is the correct one. The man should pay because thats what society expects.

Failure to pay the bill as the guy makes you look out of touch in understanding societal norms and even if the girl agrees its a dated and bs idea, she will still unconsciously feel negativity towards the guy

So, my advice is its not a good time to make a moral stand if you like vatch
Original post by theDanIdentity
whilst that may be so; i challenge your way of thinking with this:

wouldn't you find it a bit steered financially towards the female sex, considering that most females nowadays rarely - if ever - ask the guys out? surely, wouldn't that be a loop-hole we see them exploit day in and out?

as using this same logic, it surely follows that seeing as the man is the one to propose, and as he is the one to get down on knees; therefore the woman is his 'guest' and he's the head of the house.. seeing as she didn't put in any work in getting down on the knee/initiating a new part of their relationship towards the other.

Explanation: *as the guy asks the female on the date most of the time, and you suggest that he pays all of the time (except on the rare occasion that the lady actually suggests and actually carries out splitting the cost rather than faking it to look savvy); he therefore is the one to initiate the next part of their relationship towards the other - the dating part. Hypothetically speaking, as he initiates this next part, and she is the guest, surely (if they get there) by his initiating the next part (marriage) as well; it follows logically that the woman remains the guest for the duration of the relationship (i.e. marriage) and she retains that 'guest' title. Meaning, she'd have no say in the relationship. This is because as by his initiating and asking the girl out for drinks, it follows (usually by pre-teen girls) in this same fantasy, that the man be the one to pull the chair out, order on the girls behalf, open her doors as she arrives; put his coat on the floor for her to walk through, grabs her coat - in short, he is the one in charge of everything and anything and she's just there for the ride/a 'guest' as you claim. not much dissimilar to his position in a 19th century household; i.e. a view that should have been abandoned years ago*.


I would refer you to my prior post on this thread for a less arbitrary summation of my reasoning. I do presuppose the 'classic' first-date scenario wherein one's prospective suitee is an acquaintance or a colleague rather than an already close friend (whose ethos regarding such matters may be more readily surmised), but given that personal finance isn't exactly prime conversational fodder at the best of times—never mind when contemplating that pressure-cooker of anxiety which represents most first-dates—anything I can reasonably do to pre-empt discomfort on their part, I will consider to my advantage; and this includes paying at least the lion's share at the venue I've selected, unless they volunteer otherwise. (Even then, I'll probably re-iterate the aforementioned 'guest' argument, lest they feel unduly obligated by standard-issue feminist or egalitarian principles.)

Granted, the marital-subordinate archetype of womanhood you evoke is a curious atavism which lingers on in otherwise progressive circles of society—presumably through its embodiment of an escapist fantasy, albeit one still legitimised by hollow appeals to 'tradition' and hypermasculine posturing—but reforming someone's entire worldview would seem slightly beyond the scope of most first-dates: ultimately, providing I've given a true account of myself, my motives and my expectations as graciously as I can muster (i.e. I'm paying out of hospitality and because I can't fairly presume to know your financial situation, not just because 'you're the girl'), I'll judge by their reaction whether or not we're compatible.
(edited 7 years ago)
I think the person who the does the asking he should pay for the date. I also think splitting the check is also a good idea on the first date. It lowers the expectations something sexual happening. I don't think sex on the first date is a good idea.
Original post by Shumaya
Yeah **** those feminists I'd choose a free meal over voting/reproductive rights and just general equality any day of the week


Women have full voting and reproductive rights here in the UK.
Original post by 0to100
...So what are you saying? That females should ask us out more so they can pay? Whoever suggests the place or date pays. Simple.


tldr; what i said was that type of thinking is ********; as it severely disadvantages one sex under the premise of 'equality' (seeing as that 'rule' of 'whomever asks pays' is based on an ideal world wherein women would ask out men just as much as the reverse. But alas that isn't the case in real world situations; therefore i'm all for the 'split the bill'/dutchhh).
Original post by Profesh
How do you manage to spew dogmatic platitudes with such unerring consistency? Not that I'm complaining; it makes you far easier to ignore when I can be categorically certain that nothing you say will ever amount to even a modicum of genuine insight.


How dare you question my credibility as a poster, but I wish you a good day sir.
Split the bill, although most guys I've been on dates with have insisted on paying.
Original post by keturah
Split the bill, although most guys I've been on dates with have insisted on paying.


Same to be honest I've never heard of dates spilting the bill like where they do that for real? Just on tsr.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by WoodyMKC
Sounds fine to me :smile: Thing is, in the past I've paid for dinner and stuff and before you know it they just come to expect you to pay for everything. Certainly doesn't apply to everyone of course, but as I say I just think it's better to avoid setting a precedent as there's no way of knowing.


But if anything that makes the tradition of offering to pay more useful. If a girl just lets you pay for everything (assuming you don't insist, etc. - I've had men get angry or uncomfortable when I try to pay), that's a sign she isn't mature/responsible/independent enough for you. If she insists on chipping in, that tells you something about her character.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you