Whether it's a date or just asking a friend out, it's my understanding that whoever does the inviting does the paying. So unless he's more open-minded than most men regarding women who make the first move, he better start sticking a crowbar in his wallet and start shelling out for the meal.

I think the vetting process should have been largely completed before he asked them out on the first date anyway. Doesn't he learn anything from the initial conversation prior to asking them out? Yes, he might still get duped on occasion, but is the cost of a meal (or even coffee, if he's going to be frugal) really such a heavy price to pay? There must be thousands of divorced men, such as Hulk Hogan, would probably be grateful to have lost only that much in a failed relationship.

I gave a boyfriend a birthday card once. Two weeks later, my birthday rolled around and guess what he did. He gave me back the same card with my signature scratched off and his written in under it. That was the end of that.

All this guy is going to do is nickle and dime himself into a lonely existance. He'd probably avoid having pets because they can't pay for the kibble. Its a truly sad and pathetic way to go through life with your pennies being more inportant than a loving, give and take relationship with someone. The money you save won't love you back.

It's good that he shows his true colors right away and saves women the trouble of investing too much time on him. Not all women are gold digger or out for free food and entertainment - and the ones who are are pretty easy to spot.

BTW - would he insist on paying HIS fair share if a woman invited him to dinner?

I dunno, sounds to me like LW doesn't go out on that many dates. I doubt he's outsmarting any women, but his "pay your own way" precondition might be a good way of explaining away a poor dating life, as few women are likely to meet his criterion.

I could see the tactic backfiring in another way, though. What if the only women ready to go Dutch are the truly desparate, and possibly crazy?

My da told me once, "If you meet someone, and they borrow $20 and you never see that person again, it was probably worth it."

o.O

How can any woman think you are serious if you won't even buy her dinner? What a cheapskate...

Don't worry LW, Palmela, Fistina, and Rosie never let you down, and you better get used to them...

An easy rule of thumb is this: If you are inviting someone out, you are obligated to offer to pay. If a man is asking a woman out, he is offering her a low-risk way of getting to know him better. Likewise, if a woman asks out a man, it would be ludicrous to expect him to pay, after all, it wasn't his idea. If the gentleman constantly finds himself doing the inviting, and isn't getting reciprocation, the woman probably isn't that interested. Once a relationship matures it's more reasonable to split bills, take turns, etc. But early on it's pretentious to expect a woman (or man) to invest very much simply for the pleasure of your company.

When I invite a woman out I am prepared to pay too. However, especially here in the Northern Virginia area, if we are of similar economic status I expect her to split the check, or offer to. If she does not have much of an income then I do not expect her to pay and refuse her offer.

If I am in a dating relationship with someone of similar economic status I expect to at least alternate who pays.

I've posted here before that I am one of the few who wound up very happily married to a guy she asked out for the first date. (Please note that I'd known the guy in the context of a mutual interest group for a good 18 months at that point; I didn't go up to a guy at a bar and ask him out.) That date was a video movie at my place. He was *not* rich, though he was gainfully employed and self-supporting. And from the beginning I was willing to split most expenses.

That being said, if *he* had asked *me* out with the proviso that I'd pay for my own meal, I wouldn't have gone. Why? Because it's freakin' rude, that's why. The one who asks, pays. (I payed for the video and beer.)

If you don't have a ton of money, or just want to weed out gold diggers, ask her out to something that doesn't cost a lot of money, or even something that's free -- a street fair, a hike in a local forest preserve, a free lecture at a local university. Our town does free movies in the park every summer Friday; in my dating days I would have been happy to be asked to go to these -- if the right man asked. If you want to have a meal, pack an elegant but inexpensive picnic.

The LW's attitude is openly hostile. I'm betting he dies a lonely, un-laid old man.

While I wouldn't dream of doing what LW does, I've experienced the opposite - a woman who stridently refused to allow me to pay for her dinner.

When she yelled at me for holding a door, the date was pretty much over though.

@Brian: "When she yelled at me for holding a door, the date was pretty much over though."

Sounds like things weren't going that great before then, either, were they? That must have been an interesting evening.

It's always been my experience that going dutch on the first date puts you into friends territory. Once the relationship is established, then some reciprocation can be expected.

Chris, sounds like that guy was a real winner! Reminds me of the gal who agreed to go out with me and then, in the middle of our date, started trying to recruit me to join the John Birch Society.

LW sounds like a real tool...and he's probably going to be a bitter, lonely one if he doesn't amend his philosophy and approach.

As has already been suggested, if he's so worried about being taken for a ride, why not have the first date/couple of dates be very low-cost or even free events so that he can get to know her better and derive a better feel for her "gold-digger-ness" before springing for her dinner...problem solved!

Not being wealthy isn't a problem, being stingy is...If I had been asked out on a date with the upfront declaration that I was paying my own way, I'd have looked at him very strangely and then come up with some excuse as to why I suddenly forgot that I had a previously scheduled appointment with my shampoo bottle....

This guy is gross.

In my experience, the way someone is in one area of life, is the same way he is in every area. So, I can just imagine a life with this man being an endless accounting of who did what and who owes whom. It makes me tired just to think about it. Also, he must be a lot of fun in bed.

Its been a really long time since I last went on date so I have to ask, is there some kind of epidemic of women bilking men out of free food and movies? The way these guys describe it, it sounds like there are hungry, single women lurking in trees like cheetahs waiting to pounce on some poor, unsuspecting male for a free meal. What do these women do for food in between dates?

Sounds to me like this guy is just a cheap bastard trying to make excuses for the fact that no woman wants to go out with him a second time. Hey LW try this... be somebody a woman would WANT to get to know better and this kind of problem magically goes away.

And I totally agree with the person who said that his system was a good way to ensure that he only pulled the most desperate and crazy of women... But who knows, maybe he likes it that way b/c it means that he doesn't have to work hard to be a pleasant and interesting person... he can just put all of the blame on the woman....

True story time:

"George," my last single buddy, is starting a new business and is very strapped for cash right now. He met "Stacy" at a party and exchanged phone numbers/calls/etc.

When they were having trouble getting together for a first date, George simply stated: "look, I'm on a really tight budget and very consumed with starting this business right now. As much as I would like to, I simply can't afford to take you out to dinneer and a movie."

Stacy's response: "Well, we could always just go for a walk and get to know each other. When are you free?"

See - all it takes is a little truth and class. In one turn, George shows Stacy character, honesty, and ambition. Stacy then shows compassion and adaptability. It really doesn't have to be a "war" between the sexes.

There is always so much discussion about who should pay for what, and when and under what circumstances...
however, if you worry about it so much that you have to add a footnote to asking someone to hang out with you, something is very wrong. I live in a studio apartment and bartend for a living (at a country club no less) but live a much nicer life than many of my customers because of my ability to occasionally part with $ in exchange for pleasure. Money doesn't do you any damn good when it's hoarded. Personally I enjoy buying presents for people I like, occasionally buying drinks for my friends, surprising my significant other with small gifts, or hosting fun parties. oh yeah, and i'm one of those females who would have been "weeded out".
look people, it's just money. it seems to me everyone would have a greater quality of living if instead of calculating life down to the penny, they lightened up and enjoyed living a little bit more. There is a sweet PLEASURE in giving that seems to be missing here--especially when you're trying to send the message "i think i like you and i want you to like me back"--which is what you're essentially trying get across when you ask someone out on a date. Ironically this guy is doing the exact thing he's scared the women will do; he's showing more interest in the money than in the other person.

sheepmommy:

The way these guys describe it, it sounds like there are hungry, single women lurking in trees like cheetahs waiting to pounce on some poor, unsuspecting male for a free meal. What do these women do for food in between dates?

This made me chuckle and think of this.

It's interesting that the LW assumes that his company is so fascinating that a woman would withstand it for the incredibly clever scam of getting a free dinner. I have been married so long that dating is a distant memory, but let's say I had to feign romantic interest in Dick Cheney or Philip Garrido or (insert your least attractive potential date). Is that really worth a plate of pasta and a cheap red wine? Seems like a horrific waste of time for a few calories. If I'm that broke, I'll eat ramen and hang out with people I actually like.

This screams of cheap cheap cheap!
I believe it also beats me being asked out to dinner, then the guy suggesting McDonalds. I didn't go. (yes, he had money for more, and if he didn't I would have been quite happy picking up a coffee and walking the waterfront - romantic, yes? McD's just will never be romantic.)

I will admit that I look for a guy who can be a provider as well as generous - not because I'm out for all I can take, but because I provide for my man too, and am very generous with him and it's nice to have equality in giving and taking.

I have a lovely 50-something girlfriend, who is also a devout catholic, that I've tried fixing up on a few blind dates. She always manages to tell them within that first date that she won't have sex until marriage. And she gets pretty much the same response that LW probably gets - watching them run for the door.

It's not that the guys are sex fiends, but her treating them like they are makes them assume she's a prude, just as LW treating every woman like a golddigger makes them think he's a cheapskate. Neither may be true but nobody's going to stick around to find out.

Its been a really long time since I last went on date so I have to ask, is there some kind of epidemic of women bilking men out of free food and movies? -- Sheepmommy

Actually a Pandemic! No, but seriously there are a lot. Two girls (late 20s/early 30s) at work openly talked about going out on dates with guys they were not interested in. A friend of a friend (early-mid 30s) told me she was not interested in me because I didn't put out the money - however, she would be interested once she wanted to settle down because she knew I was good with money and could always keep her taken care of albeit possibly without all the luxury goods.

Ever girl (not that it has been many) that has asked me out has expected me to pay.

The Kmart comparision is interesting. If a store has such a problem with shoplifting I imagine it would do something to prevent it or close. A small cd shop near me with its policy of no large bags or backpacks seems like a fitting comparision. The people that aren't willing to leave their bag at the counter probably are not the ones you want in there anyway. Still, I think the problem is women will be offended with his strategy.

I don't think a couple of dumb girls makes a pandemic. Besides, were they talking about not being interested in their dates BEFORE they went out with them or afterwards?

Dating is about getting a sense of whether you like someone or not, and a woman can certainly decide she doesn't care to continue the relationship (romantically) after the date. That doesn't mean she was in it just for the meal. I think that's where this comes from. Guys who were rejected after a date assume the woman was never into them in the first place. More likely, it's something they said or did during the date, not that she's so hard up she needs someone to buy her a meal.

It would have to be damn good meal for most women to purposely sit through an evening with someone they didn't like. And I find it really hard to believe any woman would do that for a $7 glass of wine.

@John Tagiaferro When I invite a woman out I am prepared to pay too. However, especially here in the Northern Virginia area, if we are of similar economic status I expect her to split the check, or offer to. If she does not have much of an income then I do not expect her to pay and refuse her offer.

Do you always know a woman's economic status before the first date?

Good point Lovely Soul. I should have pointed out that this was before or perhaps continuing to go on dates after they decieded they weren't interested. I assumed that would be obvious since I had bothered to mention it.

Perhaps something else that should be made more clear is I don't think that they disliked the guys but rather lacked interest in them.

The pandemic comment was a joke on public service announcement that I saw this morning about h1n1.

Yes, it is a small number of women. It could an anomly. Since I would expect to be privy to no such information it seems very significant that I have an evidence of it.

This is something of a tangent, but I'd like the opinion of the women commentators and Amy too. I have never not paid on a date except for twice, even on occasions where the woman was the one who asked me out, and on the two occasions where I didn't pay, the woman literally grabbed the check and said forcefully, "I'm getting this one." Almost every time I go out, the woman offers to split the check, and I always insist on paying. Ladies, am I doing the right thing? Should I allow the woman to pay if she offers? It seems kind of ungentlemanly for me to allow that.

"I should have pointed out that this was before or perhaps continuing to go on dates after they decieded they weren't interested."

I think what you're describing here are people who are afraid of spending any time alone. Men are guilty of this as well. I have a male friend who stays with his girlfriend, who he usually doesn't even seem to like, and who he openly admits he is settling for. He complains about her all the time, but says it's still nicer having her around than being alone.

It must suck being so dependent. I would rather sit at home with my dog curled up on my lap and read a book than endure a date with a guy I wasn't interested in.

Yes, Bryan, that's right. A polite woman will always reach for her purse and offer to pay, but we're more impressed if you insist. It is the gentlemanly thing to do. If we really want to pay, we'll insist and give you no choice, as those two ladies did.

I'm curious, did they continue dating you? I would probably only really insist on paying if: a) I didn't plan on seeing the guy again. b) the guy had picked up the tab for our last date, or if I happened to order something very expensive (which I wouldn't normally do, but, let's say, I was craving lobster or something, then I would feel it was tacky to stick a casual date with the full tab).

When I go out with my best-beloved, she generally pays for the dinner---but she understands that to see her, I have to travel a thousand miles one-way, which kind of trumps dinner in her mind. That way, she also gets to pick the venue---and she has ideas about expanding my horizons at the dinner table. She loves different cuisines and likes to introduce me to them, too.

BTW, a great way to end a relationship, keeping the dumpee's ego intact: You go to restaurant, but ask that she select the cheapest thing on the menu. You need to save money for retirement, etc. Tell her how great she looks.
Okay, then when the waiter asks you what you want, order the most expensive thing on the menu.
If you ever want to see a pinch-faced woman, now is the time!
When the inevitable inquiry begins, answer, "Just because I have to scrimp for retirement doesn't mean I shouldn't enjoy a few things along the way."
The pinch-faced look deepens.
She will leave the relationship (remember to tell her how great she looks), and think she is dumping you, and you won't have said or done anything wrong. Sheesh, she is still getting a free dinner.
Act disappointed, sorry, but insist as a matter of principle this is just how it is going to be. You are a free man, and you have acted honorably in all regards.
I am not even afraid of kryptonite after a date like that.

Hi lovelysoul,

Thanks for your response! In answer to your question, with the woman who absolutely insisted on paying, the situation was an already existing long-distance relationship where I had flown out to see her, and I had already picked up a few tabs that weekend, and I think she felt that after my paying for a plane ticket and a few dates as well, she didn't want me to pay any more. With the situations where the women offered to pay but I insisted, the situations were varied. Sometimes it was a blind first date where we didn't see each other after that. Other times it was a woman who I had been seeing for a while.

There's a difference between someone who is being careful with money and cheapness. Cheapness is usually accompanied by a cheapness of spirit as well. LW has a negative view of women and I suspect that the woman who would agree to the terms of his date would probably be extremely desperate and not worth dating. Of course, he'd find some horrible thing wrong with her anyway, something like she ate the last roll in the breadbasket or that she wanted to tip 20%.

I won't have that terrible feeling of being duped into the meal and movie scam.

LOL - oh yes, the old meal and a movie scam. That's a classic. It's right up there with the coffee and a walk in the park hustle, or the art gallery opening w/ a drink afterwards con.

It's a good thing that the LW has caught onto these ploys. Because the next one they'll pull is to invite you back to their place for sex. And then afterwords they bite your head off and drain your bodily fluids. It happens every time.

And then afterwords they bite your head off and drain your bodily fluids.

The first nightmare that I can remember ended like that, it was more of an erotic nightmare acctually. I was 12 or 13 reading Dracula, and had just read past the point where Harker had just escaped the three brides of Dracula when I went to sleep

The LW is over thinking it (sounding resentful in the process)and forgetting what the end game is (and hurting possible end game success). If you like a woman and ask her out, reach for your wallet and pay! It's a relatively small cost of doing business/wooing her. And if you hit it off with her, the cost of a few dates is a damn good investment. Assuming you do hit it off with her, she'll reach for her purse and/or insist on paying on the next date or soon after. If she doesn't? Then she probably isn't worth getting overly involved with anyway (like paying to see a movie that sucked and wasn't worth it). Either way it's just a cost of trying to find women your compatible with. I just don't see this big point of contention.

Well, if you're a serial dater who only approaches women who are out of your league, then I can see where it would get expensive.

Then again, if you don't go for the Paris Hilton types, you'll avoid a lot of hassles.

"Almost every time I go out, the woman offers to split the check, and I always insist on paying. Ladies, am I doing the right thing?"

Bryan, I'm going to second everything lovelysoul said. I think you are doing the right thing. There is something to this evolution stuff Amy talks about. Women like it when a man does the pursuing, shows confidence, picks up the tab, and all the rest. In fact, here's another tip: When you ask a woman out, have something in mind. There is nothing more annoying than the endless circle of 'Whaddayawannado? I dunno. WhaddaYOUwannado?' We like a man with a plan. I mean seriously, sometimes I just don't have a restaurant in mind, nothing is occurring to me, and it's starting to become a chore to try and come up with something.

Women will offer to pay because we oftentimes make just as much money as you do, and we imagine being in your shoes. Wow, by the time he picks up the tab for A and B, this date is going to set him back some! We're not trying to be mooches. I think in your situation, and a similar one that someone else mentioned - where the guy had already incurred significant costs just getting there - you SHOULD let her pick up the tab for something.

Is it fair that men are usually expected to pay for dates? Probably not, but that's the way it is - either deal with it and suck it up or quit dating. Whining about it won't make a lick of difference and just makes you come off as a whiney bitch. Which, as we all know, women just looooove. Yes, there are going to be a few women who take advantage of you, but there are plenty who are sincere and interested. On an aside, my girlfriend has confessed to me that when she was in college she did plenty of "dating for dinner" just because money was kinda tight and it was a free meal.

Do you always know a woman's economic status before the first date?

Pretty much always, at least a general idea. Trying to think of one I didn't. However, in this area it is very common to mention one's occupation early in the meeting process, if they are in private industry, government, contractor, etc.

The lawyer I was seeing the past few months never thought of expecting me to pay for her anywhere and if it was an "at home" date we sort of alternated making dinner, supplying the wine, etc. Same with most of the true professional women I have dated around here.

Someone mentioned by me a few times here since May, aka 'Hamas girl,' seemed to have a significantly lower income than me, but she never offered to split a check either and she should have known better. That gesture is the important part to me, but there were plenty of other things that made that destined to be very short lived.

Hmm...are there many women who bitch about the hidden costs of dating, such as paying for makeup, attractive clothes, hairstyling and birth control pills? Or want to be compensated for the time it takes to pluck their eyebrows and shave their legs?

I'd at least like to thank the LW for making it obvious up front what he's about. I'm sure it makes it easier for lots of women to avoid him.

Bryan -- for me personally, I always offered to pay my half on a first date but would assume the guy wasn't interested if he accepted. Once into a relationship and assuming similar finances, I believe things should even up -- not that its cool to actually keep a count. And certainly, if you're incurring a huge expense just to get to the date, I think the woman should pay...unless maybe you've got a private jet?

From our closest relatives:

http://www.livescience.com/animals/090407-chimp-sex.html

"The researchers found that she-chimps put out more often for males that shared food with them at least once, compared to stingy males who never offered meat" ... sounds a lot like many of the comments in this thread. Those pesky stingy males, tsk.

I have no problem with raw animal behavior (we are just apes after all) so long as one actually admits that that is what it is; there is nothing intrinsically morally correct or superior about acting on a desire to be purchased by a male and rejecting males who can't or won't purchase you - you're just programmed to do so by evolution - but don't confuse your instinctive evolution-programmed sense of disgust with some kind of genuine, reasoned moral value judgment on a male ... it's just an arbitrary trade/trait that evolved within our species.

It might be that LW is trying to "weed out" women who do not recognize their own behavior as merely animal and thus not based on reason, seeking to filter out women whose behavior is more reason-based. The odds of it working are much lower, but if it does work, it will work much better ... a woman intelligent enough to rise above base instinct ... rare and precious traits for future generations.

That said, our behaviors may be irrational, but the reasons for those behaviors are anything but ... men 'purchase' the most attractive woman they can afford because youthfulness and hotness mean more offspring, while women 'sell' themselves to men who can provide well because it genuinely results in better offspring. Nonetheless the behaviors are driven by instinct, not reason.

Nonetheless the behaviors are driven by instinct, not reason.

The article you link shows a very weak association. This behavior took place over months, and even in this interval the researchers had to include single incidents of sharing to establish a correlation. What's that tell you?

In the researcher's own words..
I suspect this is why I found a correlation that nobody else had found before.

And why do you assume that this behavior is genetically determined, and has been inherited by humans? The research does not address either claim.

I agree that the approach of guys like this is tacky to say the least, and that whatever the merits of the case there are better ways of making one's point. Although it is possible that these types of guys are just deliberately trying to offend to make a point, and he doesn't seriously expect to get women to take him up on these terms.

It is also interesting to know whether or not this guy or others like him are just mean and stingy in all aspects of their life, or are merely deciding to act this way in order to take a principled stand on the current state of gender relations and double standards. If they are mean and stingy in the whole of their lives, then I agree that such people are not worth knowing let alone spending your life with. Those who are overly miserly and penny-pinching do end up sucking the joy out of life.

When I have been out on dates, I usually pay the bill (sometimes the woman insisted on splitting it). But I rarely ask women out now, because frankly I don't think there is much point in today's climate and I find it easier to spend my time and money in other ways. Yet I try to be more generous in most aspects of my life. When some of my siblings have had difficulties paying large expenses, I have given them significant help from my own pocket. And I put a fair amount of money into hosting parties and dinners for close friends. Sometimes if I am out for dinner on my own I will call a friend who lives nearby and ask if they want to join me, and if so pay for their meal as well.

The point is that I find it more satisfying to spend my money on other things than going out on dates. I would rather have a few laughs with those I am close to than spend an evening across the table from some random woman going through her checklist of 100 things potentially right or wrong with a perspective man, knowing full well that I will probably fail at least 30 straight off. I really cannot be bothered making the effort anymore, considering the amount of nonsense and disdain that men have to put up with from women in society generally. I will please myself and anyone else who cares about me. And all the women waiting around for Mr Perfect to come and rescue them from their biological clocks or boring jobs or whatever can please themselves as well.

MonicaP writes.....>>>Hmm...are there many women who bitch about the hidden costs of dating, such as paying for makeup, attractive clothes, hairstyling and birth control pills? Or want to be compensated for the time it takes to pluck their eyebrows and shave their legs?

Great point. I'd bet a large majority of women spend more money on date preparation than men. So if the LW says to his date, "we are going to split the cost of the date", should his date then say, "great! My makeup, hair, clothes, etc came to 200 dollars. By the look of your clothes and hair, yours cost about 40 bucks. Your half is 80 dollars. I accept cash only....".

MonicaP writes.....>>>Hmm...are there many women who bitch about the hidden costs of dating, such as paying for makeup, attractive clothes, hairstyling and birth control pills? Or want to be compensated for the time it takes to pluck their eyebrows and shave their legs?

Great point. I'd bet a large majority of women spend more money on date preparation than men. So if the LW says to his date, "we are going to split the cost of the date", should his date then say, "great! My makeup, hair, clothes, etc came to 200 dollars. By the look of your clothes and hair, yours cost about 40 bucks. Your half is 80 dollars. I accept cash only....".

Bryan,

I guess I'm strange, but if I offer to pay for my half, and the guy doesn't accept, I will insist a few times, but will let him pay eventually. Then I won't go on a second date.

Sure, in general, it's fine for the men to assume that they're paying. However, I feel that after spending time (like a date) with a particular woman (as opposed to women in general), a guy should be OK with adapting to that particular situation. If a guy can't adapt to my preferences (I pay for my stuff, or alternate), then I'm not interested. I don't announce it beforehand, like the LW (I wouldn't go out with him either), but if a guy continues treating me like he'd treat other women, in the general sense, then he probably just wants A girlfriend, not THE girlfriend that I would be.

Hope that makes sense!

I do find that strange, Ashley. Just like the LW. I don't understand why people purposely put up these barriers to happiness. Romance is tough enough to find without creating all sorts of unnecessary rules to inhibit it. The men you reject on the grounds that they offer to pay for a date - and the women LW rejects because they don't - could very well be right for you, but you'll never give them the chance.

If someone doesn't want a relationship, or is so pessimistic about the opposite sex, then they shouldn't date at all. Making up these rules seems to be just a way to push people away while blaming it entirely on them.

Yesterday, at my cafe where I write, he came by to give me a hug (I've been really upset about some business stuff that's been pretty stupid), and bought me my scoop of eggsalad and side of avocado and a little Pellegrino, probably about $10, and left the hardworking, sweet people there who are so nice to me a $5 tip.

That is pretty much the way I do things too and I am surprised when women are surprised when I do things like that.

I can remember a few times when my date gave me a strange reaction, but almost always it is nice the way you sound like you reacted.

@Amy from 0815,

Just the way I write my book characters striving to be! No wonder prople ask me who they are based on. I had no idea you had so many readers ;)

I'm with a previous post-I want to know how the LW would feel if this situation were reversed. I am a self sufficiant 27 yr old woman. I have no problem paying for myself and I would NEVER expect a guy to pay for me all the time. Normally on a first date I would offer to pay anyways. If he insisted I would let him, if not I would pay for myself. However if I was told upfront that I would be paying for myself I would not bother wasting my time on someone that stingy. I'm with Amy if you're that cheap on a first date. how cheap are you in other areas?

I suspect that there be a slight difference of perspective. In other discussions, I have seen that the men with a perspective similar to the LW in general view it from a larger picture where the women view it closer in. The women view it as an interaction between herself and the guy. The guy views as a number of dates with a number of women.

I enjoy being generious with people in my life and part of it is that I get something in return - it is a two way thing. The problem I have had is a long stream of women who expect to be paid for - none of the insisted on paying at least - and frankly now it feels like on the dates that I am being taken advantage of.

If she is that demanding, how demanding is she going to be in other parts of life?

I suspect that there be a slight difference of perspective. In other discussions, I have seen that the men with a perspective similar to the LW in general view it from a larger picture where the women view it closer in. The women view it as an interaction between herself and the guy. The guy views as a number of dates with a number of women.

I enjoy being generious with people in my life and part of it is that I get something in return - it is a two way thing. The problem I have had is a long stream of women who expect to be paid for - none of the insisted on paying at least - and frankly now it feels like on the dates that I am being taken advantage of.

If she is that demanding, how demanding is she going to be in other parts of life?

Whatever that hangup is, Ashley, you'd best fix it instead of having secret "fail!" rules for a guy.

I do OK. :)

It's not a "secret 'fail!'" rule, it's a rule of weeding out, and I'm quoting you, "substandard" people. When I say I want something, that is in fact what I want, and if the guy doesn't believe me, I won't waste my time.

Then again, I pursue guys I like, I remain very good friends with all of my exes, and I play a lot of video games, so I guess you shouldn't take me as an example. I just wanted to point out that not all women are lying when they say that they want to pay their own way.

Ashley -

You play video games? How old are you, and what side of the country are you on?

Ahh, how quickly it goes from "fail" to "can I have your number?" Video games solve all relationship problems.

I'm on the East coast, 25, and play mostly MMOs, although Rock Band is another favorite.

Thanks to everyone who gave an answer to my question, even though it was a little off topic!

Video games solve all relationship problems.

I wish more women understood this.

You can create whole new classes of swears playing Mario Kart.

Although I have to say that I'd be offended if the woman refused to let me pay on the first date. I think Amy's right, and I would take it as a sign of "Yeah, I had fun, but not enough fun to ever talk to you again."

Who asks, pays. Until the relationship is established, and then you can figure it out from there.

I just don't want you to "weed out" the wrong guys. As you get older, you'll understand that there are a lot of reasons for a guy to "fail" a date, but insisting on paying shouldn't be one of them. Some guys are just old-fashioned about this, and personally, I've found those are the best guys.

Of course, at 25, guys your age aren't old-fashioned, but if they have been raised to be gentlemen, they will usually insist on paying. And it's confusing for guys because most women will offer but aren't really serious, so the guy feels he'll be looking cheap if he lets her pay.

I have nothing against your preferences, and I think most couples end up working that out as they continue - alternate paying, etc - but the first few dates aren't where you want to judge that. If, after you've explained clearly how it bothers you for him to pay, and the guy keeps doing it, then perhaps break it off because he's not being responsive to your feelings. But, believe me, just as Amy and I have found, a boyfriend who is that generous is usually one you shouldn't toss away. There are far worse sins than a guy who wants to care for you.

I don't get the LW - being on a date with someone you've realised you're not attracted to is awkward enough. Why on earth would anyone go through that just for the sake of a meal? If I'm that hard up I'll eat ramen, thanks.

Ladies she's 25. Provided that she doesn't look like Ernest Borgnine, she can weed out 98% of the men who want to have sex with her, and still have options.

Eventually she'll either ..

A. Get married and not have to worry about dating any longer.
B. Grow up and recognize that men aren't psychic lab rats.
C. End-up wondering why men don't call back or show any interest in her any longer.

In my experience most single women eventually get to B, but a lot stay stuck in C.

Ashley why don't you try explaining why your motives to these guys rather than playing games ~ or is it that you enjoy the ego gratification of 'weeding out' men?

You can spot the gold diggers pretty easily, usually. Me? Just the opposite. Unless I was out with a guy who drove a DB7, I'd order the wine a dollar above the house wine. - Amy

So what is the technique for discovering some one is a gold digger before you get taken advantage of? Let's look at your example, if I was out on date and she happened to be a gold digger I might end up paying for $25/glass wine. First date coffee dates don't seem to work very well. I have never been good at it though I did have female friend and sometimes wing woman and she was good at it - and I was good at spotting the players for her which she was not good at.

I have not had a single date since adding the former to my name and going back to school. Oddly most women seem impressed when I say I am in school but most don't agree to a date and none have shown up for one.

First date coffee dates don't seem to work very well. I have never been good at it though I did have female friend and sometimes wing woman and she was good at it - and I was good at spotting the players for her which she was not good at.

They seem to work okay for me. A few months ago I had a coffee date with a gorgeous 31 year old Vietnamese woman, lived close but not too close, discovered each other on Craigslist. Was okay on email, but in person I lost all interest in the first 5 min. of our one hour date at a Starbucks.

Had another like that too, but she was closer to the age range I prefer. But she had an issue with my smoking and wanted me to quit right then. Winston won, she lost.

For me, a different factor, seems to be that the women I meet in their 30s are very rarely compatible with me. I am sure there are women in that bracket who are "all grown up" but I don't seem to find them. I look more for mid-forties and over.

I was just thinking about reprocity and what sort of subconscious weight people give to it.
I'm not one to count out how much each person spends, this is not really about money but about what you feel that each person contributes (in the complete sense of the word, so including consideration and effort etc) to the relationship.

If an occasion is part of an ungoing relationship, (or a first date with intention to have a second) I would offer to pay but am generally happy to leave the 'balance' open - thus signalling that I am comfortable with on the low side of the see-saw until I see them next, when I will treat them to something, and things will go the other way. The more comfortable I am with someone, the more comfortable I am with either 'owing' them, or they 'owing' me.

My ex, who worked full time while I'm a student, was quite happy with the situation where he would pay for more expensive things, and I would get the smaller things, just how it worked out. For instance, he buys the cinema tickets, I'd get the snacks. Not assuming he'd get everything, and contributing when I could, made things feel equal even though he had a lot more to spend than I did.

If the occasion was the last time with a particular person, I would feel the urge to 'settle' any imbalance left at that point so that we would part ways with neither feeling like there was anything left between us.

If the occasion was a one time thing, like a first date I had decided would be an only date, I would probably insist to pay my half - thus ensuring that no imbalance was left trailing with a person I would have no further contact with.

Based on that, I would probably be more insistant to pay my share if I had no intention of seeing the guy again - thus making sure we ended things on equal footing.

The only time I paid the full bill on a first date was when my date claimed he left his wallet in his other pants after kayaking. I don't know if that was a story, but he said he would reimburse me when I dropped him off at his car after lunch. He'd kayaked some distance, and I'd picked him up, which was sort of odd, and dangerous, actually, since we'd never met, but this was right after my divorce. One of my first few "Match.com" dates.

I took him to a very nice place on the water for lunch, but I really didn't feel any chemistry, so when I drove him back to his car, and he offered to go get his wallet, I told him not to worry, it was my treat. Like you said, Arwen, I didn't want a "balance" remaining since I wasn't planning on seeing him again, but also because the situation was awkward....me waiting in the car while he retrieved money. I probably would've done the same thing if I'd liked him.

But I kinda wonder if if he'd pulled that kayaking thing before because it was a great way to get out of buying lunch. Rather than announcing to women you won't pay, it's cooler to come up with a scheme like that. lol

So what is the technique for discovering some one is a gold digger before you get taken advantage of?

Do you mean real Gold Diggers, or simply women who prefer affluent men? The former are pretty conspicuous in my experience. GD's want to qualify how much money you have, where it comes from, and also that you're going to be willing to spend it on them. They'll do the screening for you.

Otherwise nearly all women prefer affluent men. Status and affluence are intrinsic to whether they regard a man as attractive. That doesn't make them Gold Diggers. They usually have no intention of taking advantage of anyone.

If you're having problems due to your career situation, my advice would be to go for younger women. They don't tend to be as concerned with these things. In fact, I suspect that this is one of the primary reasons that older men pursue younger women.

Ashley why don't you try explaining why your motives to these guys rather than playing games ~ or is it that you enjoy the ego gratification of 'weeding out' men?

Wow, you make me sound like some kind of man-eater. I've been on exactly 7 first dates, total. Four of those ended in long term relationships (I'm in the last one of those at the moment, and it seems like it'll continue for the foreseeable future). The other three didn't work out; only one didn't work out because of the money thing.

Furthermore, it's not a "surprise" or a "game" when I don't want to see someone again. I tell them exactly why and give them a choice. If there's no chemistry, that's what I say. If it's the paying thing, I let them know that they can insist on paying, or they can go on a second date. It's their choice. :)

I don't believe in games, and I want people I interact with to take me at my word. Just because some women offer to pay but don't mean it, doesn't mean that I do. And if a guy can't take me at my word, well, it's not my problem and it certainly isn't a game.

I guess we just have different priorities. Of course, like Amy, I also don't want to date jerks and scam artists (and murderers and rapists too), but I feel that's setting the bar a bit low. I also want a guy who takes me at my word, because I mean what I say and say what I mean. I don't think that makes me a terrible person, but I'm open to differing viewpoints.

Older women pursue younger women because they're hotter.

I think that the same holds for men ;)

But it's apparent that the desire for younger women is mediated by other factors. Men aren't solely trying to maximize fertility. Also not all younger women are more attractive than older women.

But young women are often much easier to deal with - I'm referring to women in their 20's. They're usually more optimistic, less jaded, and less 'pragmatic' than women in their 30's.

My pet theory - the 'double down after 30' theory of why women remain single - is that a lot of women who remain single do so by effectively precluding themselves from forming romantic relationships with men.

There seems to be a tendency, among many women, to intensify the requirements that they make of men as they get older; both in what they expect men to provide and to tolerate. I don't know whether this arises from risk aversion, or some psychological trap that convinces them that they're just not being difficult enough. But the result is that these women take all of the fun and romance out of dating and turn it into a demeaning chore.

When I said coffee dates didn't work for me I meant in regarding to filtering out women looking for the bucks. They seem to be onto that game and it does not bother them. They are helpful in that sometimes I discover that I am not interested so don't ask for another date.

My experiance with younger women is that if are willing to date an older guy, they expect that older guy to be spending the bucks.

Do you mean real Gold Diggers, or simply women who prefer affluent men? The former are pretty conspicuous in my experience. - Mike

I am thinking of something in between. Perhaps real Gold Diggers lite. Women who have a high concern about how much money a guy is going to spend on them. Not so much as the hard core Gold Diggers and are not so blatant about it. Perhaps I should clarify that it is taking a few dates to find out these women...not like months.

These GDL seem very common. It has been suggested to me that the problem is that I don't want kids and in this area a non-married past 27 or so is rare and so they can expect a lot. If they don't get what they want, there is five guys behind this one anyway.

LW has a very poor opinion of women. i can say that i have NEVER gone out with a man just so he can pay for my meal. i don't know of any woman who would. if i'm not genuinely interested in him, i would rather be home eating peanut butter jelly.

I think by the time anyone has reached their 30s, they should be more demanding about partners. In your 20s, you're still figuring out what you want, what you like, what you can deal with. If you're not choosier by the time you hit 30, then you've learned nothing. Unfortunately, it's difficult to acquire experience without becoming a little jaded in the process.

I think by the time anyone has reached their 30s, they should be more demanding about partners. In your 20s, you're still figuring out what you want, what you like, what you can deal with. If you're not choosier by the time you hit 30, then you've learned nothing. Unfortunately, it's difficult to acquire experience without becoming a little jaded in the process.

You must live in an area with a lot more men than women, FB. There's nothing wrong with women holding out for "a lot" rather than settling. That doesn't necessarily make them GDLs.

The fact you don't want children is going to be an impediment with many younger women, regardless of your income. I would suggest dating slightly older women, particularly those who have interesting, fulfilling jobs, like Amy mentioned, and also maybe those who already have children.

I'd also carefully evaluate how you come across. If you put forth an interest in money and material goods yourself (ie: driving an expensive car, wearing fine clothes, watch, etc), then that is the sort of women you will likely attract. If you come across as more down to earth and unconcerned with material things, it's unlikely GDs will target you. You'll attract more easygoing, grounded women who'll care more about you than your earning potential.

I think the car you drive is probably very important to most true GDs and GDLs. My boyfriend, who is awsome in every way, drives an old Impala. I could care less, but a GD wouldn't be caught dead in that car.

I am thinking of something in between. Perhaps real Gold Diggers lite. Women who have a high concern about how much money a guy is going to spend on them.

That's pretty common. But it's relative.

I'd encountered a scene reminiscent of what you've described several years ago when I was living in an affluent suburban region. There weren't many eligible single women. The ones I'd met often wanted the same lifestyle as the married women they knew - though they made nothing like the kind of money that would be necessary. So they tended to be expensive dates. They'd wanted to go to expensive restaurants, take expensive trips, etc..

But most of them were very nice. They were just so steeped in the local culture that their expectations didn't seem unusual to them. I think that they also were accustomed to dating divorced, and perhaps married, men who were often a little older and eager to impress them.

My most treasured gift was a bunch of flowers, picked from the park and tied to my gear shift with a rubber band after I let the man who is now my SO borrow it to run errands.

Our first date was sharing a bottle of cheap vodka and orange in the empty living room of his new apartment-empty because after paying rent, he didn't have any money to buy furniture. Best date I ever had.

Mike, your description of the women does sound like what I am talking about. I have known of quite a few who dated married men.

LS, do you think it is my 10 year old Honda (stock - not one that is tricked out) or my t-shirts (generic) or Levi's? Generally no watch...but when I do wear it (and it is nice) I do get more attention.

Women with kids are clearly out since I don't want kids. Older women without kids - or grown kids - generally are dating men older then them. I have had zero luck with older women. In fact, younger women actually seem the best option, but still not good.

A few years ago a friend in marketing said that in my age group the effective ratio was 2 guys per gal according to their marketing data.

Gregg had some weird old car when I met him. Marlon Brando drove an aging Lexus - bought new and then kept for, I dunno, probably 10 years.

My friend Richard, who I know is very successful, drives something Japanese...maybe a Toyota about six years old. He doesn't have to impress anyone. But, he is truly impressive and not just because of what he does for a living. He's one of those guys you ask a question who really listens, really thinks about what you're asking, and gives you a really smart, thoughtful answer.

And that's the stuff that matters to me -- in a boyfriend or friends. And I don't think it's that hard to tell, when you talk to somebody, whether they're looking for substance in a person or a financing arm for dinner, drinks, and their fall wardrobe.

Also, new cars can be fun, and so can flashy ones, but the flash can be a decoy to draw a woman's attention away from the fact that the particular guy doesn't have much else to offer.

I don't know what could be wrong, FB. The good news is that the situation will change as you get older, although that's not much comfort now, I know.

Considering your age range, ruling out women with kids still at home vastly narrows your options even further. You might consider at least dating women with older kids. Teenagers won't be home for much longer, and you might even find that you enjoy them, without any of the pressures or responsibilities of being a parent.

My bf never wanted kids either, but he's great with my 15 yr old daughter and genuinely likes her. They joke around and have lots of stuff in common. He kind of gets the benefit of having a kid without the work. And he knows that I no longer have a ticking biological clock, so there's no worry, as there could be dating a woman without kids.

It also may be that you're going for women who are out of your league. I have no idea what you look like, and I believe you've described yourself in the past as attractive, but one thing I learned through online dating is that many people do not have a realistic evaluation of themselves in this regard. It's probably one of the most important aspect of dating - to honestly assess what "pool" you should be casting your net in.

I'm not trying to be mean, but if you normally shoot for a certain level of attractiveness - especially with such young women - you might want to drop your expectations down just a notch and see what happens.

I don't think it's that hard to tell, when you talk to somebody, whether they're looking for substance in a person or a financing arm for dinner, drinks, and their fall wardrobe. - Amy

Unfortunately, I don't. The only one woman I can think of in recent history that did not seem to be checking out the finances was the hippy chick.

I have dated many women with older kids (teens) and none were worth the effort. That was why I decieded I didn't want kids. In general I found them to have to many other commitments and not able to do things I still ended up doing most everything alone. I understand I am limiting my options -- but experiance tells me that dating them is a worse option then just being along. As such, as far as looks, etc go - I believe I am quite open.

I believe I am reasonably attractive as I get a lot of attention from the ladies when I travel.

Thanks for all your comments. I am sure we are not going to accomplish anything here for me. I need to move but that is not an option for me right now.

Amy,

Gregg had some weird old car when I met him.

Um, I think you have cornered the market on wierd cars of any age ;)

I have fun with Gregg standing in line at Customs, and everywhere else.

More fun in store! Have you seen Hit & Run this AM?

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/136389.html

For few of them fiance is clearly THE main point. Though for all of them it seems like it is more then making sure I am not some slacker or dead beat.

I think I am going to go back on a dating break till I can move. This thread and a few other discussions recently really make me not want to bother...then this morning I ran into one paticular bariata who I am friendly with. She for the most part seems like a great candidate - good personality, doesn't want kids, my age range - probably out of my league in looks though. She was chatting about her weekend and how friends had taken her to do this and that (not cheap stuff) and I know her last boyfriend rented her an apartment.

I always INSISTED on paying my own way for at least the first three dates. What that insignificant investment has yielded is a ten-years-so-far happy marriage to a gorgeous, brilliant, 15-years-younger, by any means not-wealthy man who nevertheless didn't even BLINK when while we were still only cohabiting I had an accident which rendered me "disabled" and thus pretty much housebound for the rest of my life. (Goodbye that previous six-figure salary!)

My advice? Be who you are, live what you believe, say what you mean, and be WILLING RIGHT UP FRONT to pay your own way. Who knows, you might just end up being financially supported for the rest of your life.

-- Spike in San Diego

I think I ran into only about three true "Gold Diggers" in the past five years, maybe a few more "all mosts."

One that is coming to the front of my head was a generally attractive, on the bright side, Moroccan (maybe Algerian?) gal I met while I was having lunch about four or five years ago. When we had a lunch date a few days later all she wanted to talk about was housing. My housing, my condo, the location, size, etc. Near the end she revealed that her lease was ending and she was looking for someplace to move.

Didn't offer to split the check and I deleted her number from my phone (not in front of her).

I know her last boyfriend rented her an apartment.

Where the hell are you living?!?

That's proper Gold Digging. You can tell because it crosses that money for sex line. Even women who deliberately go for well off guys avoid getting into that sort of an arrangement. It's was too sugar-daddyish.

I don't think I'm becoming more jaded as I head toward my thirties, but I have become more realistic in what I can and cannot live with in a partner. I used to be all about "As long as we click".

These days it's more.. there needs to be enough geographical proximity to make things workable (I'm so tired of long distance, it'd be a positive novelty to be able to just drop by a partner). Compatible lifestyles. Compatible in the sack. Childfree (starting to become more important as I get older. It's not 'far future' anymore). Tolerance for things in my life like my horse and the time that requires, etc. Has to like dogs! Has to be solvent. Has to have some sort of passion or ambition in his life. I'm not talking about a high powered career (in fact, I don't think I'd like that very much) but wanting to do *something* that means something to him.

Damn, does that make me a horribly demanding shrew? I have a few more things that I'd consider cool if they were present in a guy I really liked, but I think the above are the essentials if a relationship were to work out.

A while ago I was talking to a someone, exchanging some emails. At some point he said that he worked in a factory, doing what essentially comes down to conveyer belt work. It may be that I've done some of that sort of work in my student days and felt like it stole my sanity, or that he showed no signs of having anything outside of work that he had any sort of passion about - no hobbies or anything like that. I found the job a real turnoff not because of whatever income would be attached to it, but because he'd been doing it for three years and seemed quite happy with it, with no plans to change.

I think if he'd been a mailman who did the job because he liked it and it gave him enough free time to help his brother build a house/run a dog rescue/build the Eiffel tower out of toothpicks/go sea kayacking/compete in the Air Guitar World Championships/whatever, I would not have had a problem with it at all, and might actually have been quite liked the way he drew his priorities.

Hey, Dun Juan, just pick up the damned check already! And no coupons, either!

...victim of his own expectations, destined for loserville with no love interest to speak of, or worse, one who is psycho, co-dependent, needy, and a million other kinds of red-flag charcacter and moral flaws.