stakebait | Writer's Block: Check, please!

I strongly prefer Dutch treat.

I don't mind people offering to pay, especially if they're the one who proposed the date, but I really get uncomfy when they insist... it makes me feel indebted, which I don't like, especially when I don't even have any concrete sense of what my side of the transaction is and therefore have no idea if I'm willing to take on the obligation or when I've met it. It's nothing as crude as "put out" but it's not quite nothing, either.

It also makes me reluctant to order what I really want (if I suspect it might happen) or feel guilty for doing so (if they surprise me with it after the fact) for price reasons, which is also uncomfortable.

It also makes me reluctant to agree to any more dates if I'm not absolutely sure that I'll be romantically/sexually interested in them, since I am potentially wasting their money. (And their time, but I'm wasting my own time at the same rate.)

It also makes me worry about what this says about their gender expectations... I am not a traditionally feminine woman; a guy who insists on fulfilling the traditionally masculine role is probably going to be a bad match for me in both directions... we're going to clash when I want to do for myself/be independent, and we're going to clash again when I fail to live up to the female side of the bargain.

(If it wasn't for gendered reasons, it might feel different, but in my 22 years of dating it's never NOT been a guy explicitly saying he feels he should pay because he's the guy.)

As I get to know the person better and it feels more like a relationship I do loosen up on this a little ... there can be more "you get this one I'll get the next one" once you're sure there's going to BE a next one, and concepts like "I treat you for a special occasion" or "I'll pay more because I have more disposable income than you" start to come into play.

That's not to say I've never let a guy pay. I have... three times. Because you get to a point where you're pretty much have to arm wrestle them for it, and it's undignified. But it's not a plus in my book.

[Error: unknown template qotd]

Threaded | Flat

This is why it's so much easier to date women. ;-) (Which is to say - NOT AT ALL. But at least you can't blame the insanity on gender expectations.)

As a guy on a first date I pay, because I've learned over time that there is a high risk of pissing the girl off and ruining what was otherwise a lovely date without paying. This comes from going on first dates after hearing many of my female friends saying they prefer it when people go dutch on dates, then trying to go dutch on first dates, never hearing from the woman again and then hearing through the grapevine that the girl had thought I was cute and cool but then when I didn't insist on paying decided I was "cheap." After the fourth time that happened I figured "fuck it, I'll pay even if it is a gendered thing."

I think the gender play and expectations is a lot of why a lot of people prefer that the guy pay. It makes the man feel more masculine (like a provider, capable, active, dominant etc) and the woman more feminine (desired, desirable, "worth it", pampered, passive, submissive, etc). Point is, lots of people get off on the dynamic, even if they aren't even fully aware of it. A considerable part of many, many relationships is about playing out these long set dynamics and roles with each other.

I personally only go for this when everyone is fully aware of the dynamic that is being played out, and thus we are playing it out consciously and in an exaggerated fashion which can, frankly, be hot.

Good to be aware of the dynamics that work for you and then work with them. And, also, yes!, best to be aware of what potentially is expected at the other end of the bargain.

When I was going out with the man I was related to for quite a long time, we hit the bars together as a couple. I don't drink but he does. Normally our single friends and those who are couples buy drinks for me and my boyfriend. Despite not a beer drinker, I usually end up buying those that buys me drinks as well. This did not go to well with him. He keeps telling me I don't have to buy them back because he already did and I don't drink beer. But for me, I have to because they bought two drinks for us and they should be returned two as well. How hard is that to comprehend? I do not ask him the money to buy drinks for these people. In fact, the chips I accumulate I end up giving to him the following day.

Edited 2011-11-14 14:02 (UTC)

I tend to operate on the "the person who asks out/sets the date pays" theory, or the dutch treat theory. I am very uncomfortable with "I pay because I have the penis," or "I pay, and you put out."

"I am not a traditionally feminine woman; a guy who insists on fulfilling the traditionally masculine role is probably going to be a bad match for me in both directions... we're going to clash when I want to do for myself/be independent, and we're going to clash again when I fail to live up to the female side of the bargain."

This, over and over again.

I think "the guy pays because he has a penis" is a meme that deserves a quick, painless death. "The guy (or gal, or the person who asked for the date) pays and expects sex in return"...that's not a date; that's a financial transaction.

The rest of it...I've moved over time from doing everything strictly dutch (date or not, but there was a period where

drcpunk and I were passing a symbolic half-penny back and forth to aid in splitting the cheque) to mixing up a split and a treat (and tending to let treat move around between trading off, "the person who can afford to pays," (of which "I'll treat because I want to eat out well tonight and I want to hang out with you, so don't worry about it" is one variation)).

Regarding power dynamics...you can actually take those either way (regarding paying, anyway; I think it's harder to sexualize ordering in a fashion other than "the dom orders"), so I see no reason to have power dynamics induce such an unfairness in a relationship I'm in. To consensually take advantage of an existing reason for one person to pay, sure (although that's a minefield, for I hope obvious reasons; similar to the distinction between "I'm hurting you because I want to" and "I'm hurting you to punish you for failing a test that you were rigged to fail").

"Tonight we're going HAM: Half on All Meals."

no subject

no subject

no subject

Just want to share..

no subject

no subject

no subject