NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/singles/34741

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 7.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att-out!cbnewsl!cbnewsk!krw
From: [e-mail] (keith.r.smith)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:20:03 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 138

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (keith.r.smith) writes:
>
>}In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>}>[e-mail] (keith.r.smith) writes:
>}>
>}>}In actual practice, when I invite a woman out, I am _prepared_ to foot
>}>}the tab, but hoping that the woman will be nice enough to kick-in
>}>}a portion of the funds (at least, the first time, anyway).
>}>}Someting on the order of, "I'll spring for the dinner, and you can
>}>}spring for the show".  If she does _not_ "step forward", then at the
>}>}end of the date, when we are both telling each other how nice a time
>}>}we had, then if she does not come out and offer to treat me the next
>}>}time, I will suggest it.
>}>}If she looks at me like I'm crazy, it's "hasta la vista, baby".
>}>
>}>Still, however diplomatically you may put it, I have to say that actually
>}>suggesting that your date treat you the next time is one of the most crass
>}>things I've ever heard of.  But then, I suppose that given how vitally
>}>important this "issue" is to you, how your date reacts serves as an
>}>effective filter for you.
>
>}It is a rather effective filter, as I have no desire to go out with
>}somebody who thinks that she is "too good" to treat a man every
>}once-in-a-while.
>
>I have already posted agreeing with you that it's not nice to go out
>with a woman who has some kind of an attitude on this subject, like
>it's her due to be treated or that she's "too good" to treat.  But you
>seem to keep changing what you're saying.  Up above you say that you
>make a point of suggesting *at the end of the first date* that the
>woman treat next time.  Now you're talking about the woman treating
>"once-in-a-while".  To me, those two are rather different attitudes.
>I couldn't be happy long-term with a woman who never wanted to treat
>me.  But I think that the end of the first date is not the appropriate
>time to get into that subject, nor do I think it's valid to assume that
>she'll never treat just because she doesn't offer on the first date.

Have you ever heard the expression "testing the waters"?  Let's say that
you go out with her the first time and pay for everything.  She may end
up thinking, by the end of the night, that you are a "traditional kinda'
guy", who might feel insulted if she offered to treat on the next-go-round,
or to help out with the expenses.  If that is indeed the kind of guy that
you are, then there is no problem.  If you are not, and fail to speak on
it, then she may carry on with the "default behavior", thinking that
everything is ok, while you slowly get pissed. I would just-as-soon get
it out in the open early on, by saying something like:
    "Maybe you can treat me, next time".
If her response is to look at me as if I were out of my mind, then I know
that she is _not_ the woman for me, and she will eliminate herself by not
making arrangements for that next date.  What _usually_ happens is that
she will say something like:
    "Sure! I would be glad to".
And at some time in the near future, arrange to take me out..... or not.
If she does not, then again, she eliminates herself.  In any event, she
knows that I am not a "traditional kinda' guy", and no ultimatum has been
placed..... only a self-selection process wherein I give her enough "rope"
to hang herself with, if she has a mind to do so.
>
>Maybe you missed my earlier post.  Briefly, I think that our difference
>is that you think of paying for a date as a generosity on your part, and
>the *only* response to that generosity that satisfies your idea of
>reciprocity is that the woman pay her share (or pay for the next date).

So far, you are correct.

>I think of paying for a date as something that I do because I want to
>do it, kind of loosely as a gift to the woman.  In that respect, if the
>woman offers to split it, to me it's sort of like she's refusing my
>gift.  I would much prefer that she accept it in the spirit it's given
>and just express gratitude in some way (simple "thank you", conversation,
>a kiss; *not* sex, for those of you thinking that).

Even a "mooch" will say "thank you", and offer some pleasant conversation
(that is, unless the two of you are having "the date from hell"), and
maybe even give you a little kiss...... I mean, really folx, if she
outright diss'ed you, then you might just go spend your time and money
with somebody else.  Talk is cheap!

You say toMAto, and I say toMAHto..... (see above).  The problem that
I have with your theory (and you are perfectly justified in using it
as you seem to be content with the outcome), is that you could find
yourself out on several dates with somebody who thinks that it is
_your job as a man_ to spend money on her.  These types, I filter out
early on.  Your mileage may vary.

>I will say that I
>like it if she offers to treat me to the next date, but whereas you seem
>to more or less demand that as your due, I think if it as a bonus; it
>means that she is interested enough in me to want to take me out.

You misread me.  I do not _demand_ or otherwise try to coerce anybody
to take me out.  I simply let on that I am open to the idea.  If she
fails to respond in the manner that suits me, then I move on.  When
I do, I feel no loss, because she has shown that she is not interested
enough in me to want to take me out.
>
>}Whether you belive it or not, there _are_ kinder,
>}gentler, ways to _suggest_ that somebody treat you on the next-go-round.
>}The way that you put it, it sounds like an ultimatum, and I don't
>}operate like that.
>
>The way you put it, with that "hasta la vista, baby" line, *you* made
>it sound like an ultimatum.  I mean, you made it about as plain as can
>be that if the woman isn't willing to treat you to the *second* date,
>then you don't want to see her again.  If that isn't an ultimatum,
>what is it?  I don't care how kind and gentle you *suggest* it to
>the woman, the attitude you expressed above is that the woman either
>pay for the second date, or there *is no* second date.  So how did
>I get wrong how you "operate"?

You seem to _insist_ upon getting it wrong.  It is only an ultimatum if
I tell her that it is.  That is to say that:

If I were to say something like:
    "If you _don't_ take me out next time, then don't count
    on going out with me again."
Then that would be an ultimatum, and it would be a sure turn-off, even
to a woman who might hvae been open to the idea, otherwise.

If I say something like:
    "Maybe you could take me out next time."
That would not be an ultimatum/demand, but a _suggestion_, that she could
take or leave, as she will.  The only person that this might offend, is a
woman who thinks that she is "too good" to spend any of her own money
on a man, or one who thinks that the man is "supposed" to pay all of the
time.

If she does not respond to my liking, then that is my cue to move on,
hence, "hasta la vista, baby!".  No, I don't speak the words, or in
any way get nasty about it, I simply do not go out with her again, and
she probably thinks that it is _her_ idea that this is so.

Are ya' readin' me?  Am I gettin' through?

Keith R
>
>--James Preston