Is it superficial for a woman to not want to date a guy if he doesn’t pay for the first date?

If I pay for the date, I expect sex afterwards.

I hope not all men are like this lol

A man who buys you dinner on a date wants sex from you. That is the reason that men are expected to pay even when it is expensive. The men are getting something in return.

Generally when you are out with friends, I assume that you split the bill (I do). I will buy my friend dinner if they are doing something nice for me, like helping me move.

If you take sex out of the equation... there is no logical reason for him to pay for the whole dinner. If you are just getting to know each other, then it makes sense to split the bill.

Dating is about sex. I assume you understand that, and hopefully both people are on the same page.

I did not date much, but when I did, I paid for myself. That solved the problem of being expected to spread my legs. I am thankful to be older and out of all that mess.....

To answer the OP's question, there could be more involved in the situation. Whether it's superficial or not can't be determined with the limited outline of behavior given in the example.


He might. He might just enjoy dining out with you.

There are other reasons. Mostly tradition. Like a man opening a door and holding it for a woman. That doesn't invariably mean that he wants sex, although he might. There was also the thing where men once made more money than women and thus were expected to pay the cost of an expensive meal — not always the case any longer but this sort of quasi-chivalry reflects a dynamic in many relationships, irrespective of any sexual dimension.

Treating someone to dinner establishes a certain rapport between the two people, that's true. It's a chance to do something nice, a chance to be generous. What you get in return is a greater likelihood of repeating the experience.

You are suggesting that chivalry isn't about sex. Of course it always was.

Of course it always wasn't: It originally had more to do with martial concerns. You're referring to traditions of "courtly love" which didn't develop until the late Middle Ages. I shouldn't have to point out that treating women with gentleness and respect isn't really the same as the calculated effort to wine and dine a woman with the expectation of getting laid before the night is over.

Nonsense! Chivalry is not about treating other human beings with gentleness and respect. Chivalry is about how a man should treat a lady.

The lady is one of the most hypersexualized figures in Western Culture. She is pure. She is innocent. She is chaste. She is fragile. She is to be put on a pedestal.

The story goes that the valiant man is there to defend her. He shows his worth. He serves her and solves her problems. And then she gives herself to him (meaning they ****).

This is the cultural narrative behind our modern behavior. Adults don't need doors opened and adults have their own money. Our dating behavior is based on this sexual play that goes back in our culture for centuries.

I believe that the desire for sex is healthy and normal for both men and women. Let's just be honest about this. When you go on a date (as an adult), you are saying that you want to have sex with someone and that you are considering sex with this person. I don't see the problem with that.



This is exactly my point. I have lots of friends who I treat with respect. I am not trying to get them into bed. I don't wine and dine them. Generally when I go out with friends, everyone pays for their own food.

If I am wining and dining you... it is because I want to have sex with you. If you don't want sex, I would appreciate that you would let me know before I spend all of that money. The purpose of dating is to find a sexual relationship. If you want this, these cultural rituals are part of the game and can be great fun. If you don't want to have sex, you probably shouldn't be playing the game.

Not "other human beings" — the knight was pledged to protect the weak and defenseless ("women and children first") and to value the honor of women, which meant treating women with gentleness and respect.The lady is also an obsolete, now functionless, concept.Yeah, as you lustfully stare at her across the table. For the price of a meal? That ain't no "lady"!Aspects of it are, but these vestiges of previous times are no longer operative in our culture. Usually it's just going through the motions because it's easier to conform to social norms, whatever their source.

Anyway, all this is far removed from the OP's original question, which was whether being expected to "go Dutch" is an acceptable reason for not dating someone. It has nothing to do with post-dinner expectations.

Do you agree that the desire for sex is both normal and healthy for adult human beings? If you agree, then I am curious about what you believe are appropriate ways to seek out a sexual relationship?

There is a weird dysfunction in Western culture... we want to pretend that we don't desire sex, and that sex is something that we stumble into as a reward for being a good person (but that we aren't supposed to want anyway). It isn't logical.

I love it when someone "stares lustfully at me from across the table". After all, on a date isn't that the point? You still seem to think that sex is a bad thing.

No - it could be she is more traditional.

A note - you should cheap if you ask to go Dutch. If that is the first impression you want on a date then so be it.

When I dated (married now) - as a woman I would always offer to pay my share on a first date - I never had a guy take me up on it. Once though I went out with a guy and he took me to a restaurant where they only took cash. He "did not realize it" - my doubt on that is because he lived in the neighborhood - any way - he offered to run out to the ATM nearby I said no - I will pay. I did and would have expected him to insist or get the money after we left from an ATM - I would of just said at that point - no - you just get the next one. But him not even offering -- I did not go out with him again. To me it showed lack of manners and lack of caring about making a good impression on me - maybe he did not like me enough. Either way I did not take up his offer to go out again.

Basically - if you care enough about wanting to go out on a date with a woman be a man and pay - it shows you are interested in her. If you don't know her well enough where you feel it is "worth" the money - then offer to go out someone less involved - go to a cafe - grab some coffee somewhere to get to know each other. A first date does not need to be a big commitment - time or money.

Not true or not completely true. It means he cares for you and wants to make a good impression. A gentleman will offer to pay without expecting sex - at least not on the first date.

A first date is to get to know each other to see if you eventually want a commitment whereas sex is typically involved. What max is saying is a one-night stand.

I agree with the first and last thoughts - not the middle. When you go on a date - you are saying you are interested in the person and/or attracted to them - you may be considering sex with this person - but you are not buying them dinner to have sex with them - you are spending time with them and buying dinner because you have the beginnings of an interest in them. After the dinner you may find that beautiful woman you wanted sex with - you have nothing in common and find her a bore and the idea of sex with her is gone.

Usually the focus of a first date is to get to know the person to see if you have potential to be compatible and then progress to the commitment and sex.

Otherwise if all you want is sex - there is no reason for the dinner - just meet up on your app and go have sex. It is done all the time - I have a daughter in college - and yes there many that just do that.

Dinner is for two people that want more than just the sex.

I agree with this completely, Linkat. Just to be clear, I am not seriously suggesting that someone should sex on a first date (and it has never happened to me).

My real point is that dating is about finding a sexual relationship. Being honest about this is healthy.

In my younger days, I had a few long term non-sexual "romances" that I spent a lot of money and energy on and then I was frustrated when they went nowhere. A therapist pointed me to the concept of covert contracts.

A covert contract is a contract that only one side knows about. This is very unhealthy, but it is common in American culture, particularly for men.

An example is; "if I am a great guy and do nice things for this woman, she will want to have sex with me". So the man goes and buys her gifts and takes her to nice dinners. The woman (not knowing the deal) is appreciative but doesn't respond according to the contract she knows nothing about. Then the man gets frustrated that he did everything he was supposed to and still didn't get what he wanted.

Obviously this isn't healthy or fulfilling for everyone.

I have learned to be honest and direct with what I want. After a few dates, if I decide I want a sexual relationship, I will simply say "I want to spend the night with you". Then I get an honest answer.

A couple of times the answer has been positive... "well come on in!". If a woman says she wants more time, then we can discuss what we each need. If a woman tells me to "**** off"... well then I have my answer and can move on.

I wish our society could get to the point where women could ask for sex when they wanted it. I don't think we are there yet.

Hey I think what you say there is reasonable - as long as it is done respectfully. There is no reason to hide what you want on either side.

But I don't completely agree with that you date to get involved in a sexual relationship - that puts the sexual part as more important - to me you date to have a relationship and sex for a normal healthy adult couple is a positive byproduct of a relationship. Although I do know there are times when people are just looking for sex - but for the most part dating is what you do to see if you too are couple material. You do not need to date to just have sex with someone.

As an aside - a good friend and me (girlfriend) always had an agreement when we went out say to a bar or club or the like - especially on vacations - as I had many men that were good friends (no sex) so I knew the deal on vacation - they would try like heck to hook up (sexually). Our agreement was that if we were out and a man bought us a drink we would return the favor and buy them a round. Not that we felt one should feel that a guy buying you a drink would mean now they own you and could hook up with you - but we did not want any mis-communication and have they feel that way.

And I met my husband on vacation and yes he bought me drinks and we hung out with him and his friend but did not have sex (well not on vacation any way).

I also knew a co-worker who was living with her boyfriend and she would frequently go out after work with some other women for a couple of drinks - she would flirt with guys and entice them to buy her drinks (many) - later when it was close to time to leave the guy would always want to hook up and suddenly she would start speaking about her fiancé - would piss them off royally.

Personally I always thought that was low.

Dating is fine. Maybe buying a woman a nice dinner. My point is that going to a show or eating at a nice establishment needn't be done with the assumption that sexual activity must ensue.

Good for you. It would make some people uncomfortable. (I was thinking of The Round Table, however.)

No, not invariably. You insist on making your predilections normative.

It's a biological function. It's neither good nor bad. It depends on the specific context and the particular individuals involved.

Depends on who rendered the invasion. Expecting sex for dinner is petty as hell.