Girl says "I'm down, if you're willing to buy me food lol"

[EyeBRollin]

I learned around 2012-2013 from reading Manosphere writers like Roosh and Heartiste to avoid dinner dates in restaurants prior to sex. Prior to 2013, I had some bad 1st and 2nd dates that were restaurant dinner dates.

It can be difficult to avoid dinner dates in restaurants in the early stages. As much they can be avoided, they should be avoided.

A lot of it comes down to assessing the woman in a potential dinner date scenario. A woman that is met on a dating website/swipe app is the worst candidate for an early stage dinner date but a woman met through a friend or acquaintance (social circle) is a better use of a dinner date.

If you can’t afford a $60 dinner, why are you dating?

 

[SW15]

If you can’t afford a $60 dinner, why are you dating?

The problem isn't one $60 dinner. The problem is a collection of failed dates. A few failed $60-$100 dates a month can affect men's wallets. I can understand why some men want to avoid costly dinner dates.

 

[EyeBRollin]

The problem isn't one $60 dinner. The problem is a collection of failed dates. A few failed $60-$100 dates a month can affect men's wallets. I can understand why some men want to avoid costly dinner dates.

That the cost of dating.

 

[samspade]

I learned around 2012-2013 from reading Manosphere writers like Roosh and Heartiste to avoid dinner dates in restaurants prior to sex. Prior to 2013, I had some bad 1st and 2nd dates that were restaurant dinner dates.

It can be difficult to avoid dinner dates in restaurants in the early stages. As much they can be avoided, they should be avoided.

Agreed. I only ever had one dinner date, when I was very young and not well-educated on these things.

There is absolutely no upside to going to dinner with a girl you haven't had sex with at least 5-10 times. I can accomplish the same objective over drinks. Dinner does not make for advantageous seating or conversation. Too much time spent eating, reading menus, digesting, etc. If I'm hungry on a drink date I just order a quick appetizer at the bar. Otherwise I save dinner for friends, relatives, or LTRs.

If she becomes a plate, occasional meal is okay but beware - it's bf/gf behavior and she will see it as such. Exception, many times when I've given a girl great sex she's paid for my meals. But even that is just a way for her to get her hooks in a guy.

 

[Bokanovsky]

are men these days so poor that they worry about who is going to pay for dinner... perhaps they also ask for gas money and go dutch on the condom.

No, but some men are still dense enough not to understand that the whole issue of who pays is not about money but about frame control. The same idiots who are foaming at the mouth about chivalry and being a gentleman and all that BS are often the ones whining the loudest about the dating game being biased in favour of women. Well, duh. If you have to pay for the privilege of her company, don't be surprised if your value is lower by default.

 

[EyeBRollin]

No, but some men are still dense enough not to understand that the whole issue of who pays is not about money but about frame control. The same idiots who are foaming at the mouth about chivalry and being a gentleman and all that BS are often the ones whining the loudest about the dating game being biased in favour of women. Well, duh. If you have to pay for the privilege of her company, don't be surprised if your value is lower by default.

We all pay for the woman’s time. You pay using money or your own time, which is even more expensive than the money. That’s how the dating game works. Women extract resources and time from men in exchange for sexual access.

 

[BillyPilgrim]

We all pay for the woman’s time. You pay using money or your own time, which is even more expensive than the money. That’s how the dating game works. Women extract resources and time from men in exchange for sexual access.

They already do to begin with thanks to a little thing called civilization. The idea is to limit anything extra on top of that.

 

[Bokanovsky]

We all pay for the woman’s time. You pay using money or your own time, which is even more expensive than the money. That’s how the dating game works. Women extract resources and time from men in exchange for sexual access.

Incorrect. What you are proposing is contributing both, your money and your time, whereby a woman only contributes time.

With respect to women extracting resources and time in exchange for sexual access, you must not be a student of history. The idea of a man having to exchange resources for sexual access is a relatively recent one and is an unfortunate byproduct of capitalism. Before the 19th century, it was actually the other way around. A man would receive financial contributions from the bride's family in exchange for agreeing to take her as his wife. Watch the movie The Last Duel. Theres a great scene there where the knight negotiates a dowry with his future wife's father. He basically tell the father that he wants more land or he's not marrying the b!tch. That's how things used to work for much of recorded history. The "value" that a man would provide to a women was protection. The value that a woman would provide to her man was, first and foremost, her father's financial resources.

 

[samspade]

We all pay for the woman’s time. You pay using money or your own time, which is even more expensive than the money. That’s how the dating game works. Women extract resources and time from men in exchange for sexual access.

The "time" expense is a wash. She is paying with her time as well. Your money is also your time, monetized at your job. So it depends on how much you make and spend. If you make $100/hour, a $60 dinner is obviously no big deal and no man of such means would start a thread talking about it.

Women are not impressed with - in fact are repelled by - men who squander resources to buy them things. Again, depends on the man's wealth, but even rich players know better than to buy a woman an unearned dinner. And all women subconsciously know what they deserve.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Incorrect. What you are proposing is contributing both, your money and your time, whereby a woman only contributes time.

You have a point here, as I’ve never been one to fvck around on the phone longer than 5-10 minutes with a broad. Some guys think enough chatting will get them in the pants for less money. To me that is a huge waste of time.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

It has been over a month since our first date, BTW.

Why would you pay for food with a woman who took a month to see you again?

 

[2Rocky]

It has been over a month since our first date, BTW.

Not the greatest grounds for a dinner date BTW....

There is definitely a difference between buying a couple burritos at the taco truck and going to a white tablecloth restaurant.
Cooking them dinner I think has the highest value return to expense.
But I understand that sometimes that is not an option such as : you are out of town, the only time she can meet is during mealtime, She is pressed for time, etc.
In those cases : Do lunch. it's cheaper. Get something to go and eat in a park.
If you have to do dinner, there is a couple things you can do. 1) eat beforehand and have desserts or 2) just have a salad. She's going to feel real self conscious ordering a prime rib dinner while you munch on a Caesar. And you will see if she is really just trying to get a free meal. 3) order dinner to go and take her to your place or your hotel room with a bottle of wine or liquor. Eating by the pool if you are at a hotel is always unique...In my hometown I always had the park benches scouted out that had good views. Works good along the seaside as well. Nothing like a dozen oysters for a late lunch with some prosecco or light beer to wash them down then call into Applebees for some finger food to pick up curbside before you head back to your hotel room that night....

If she wants a nice dinner first date, I'll usually counter with grabbing a drink first and some appetizers. Build your schedule so there is not "time for a full sit down meal"

You are still gonna have to charm them guys...There is no 'food for sex exchange rate' and if you think there is you don't understand women. And if she isn't worth a burger and fries, you shouldn't be sleeping with her anyway....

 

[metalwater]

No, but some men are still dense enough not to understand that the whole issue of who pays is not about money but about frame control. The same idiots who are foaming at the mouth about chivalry and being a gentleman and all that BS are often the ones whining the loudest about the dating game being biased in favour of women. Well, duh. If you have to pay for the privilege of her company, don't be surprised if your value is lower by default.

that's a good point you make. for me, it's more like not worrying about it. I don't think, darn I am getting a bad deal if a buy dinner. At the same time, I don't use it as a bribe.

If it's someone I just met, anything more than one coffee or one glass of wine is going to be separate. If it's someone I hang out with occasionally, then I don't care. If I don't enjoy that time I avoid that situation again with that person. I don't keep a logbook to ensure things are even.

dense.. hahah, that's a new insult for me.

demanding the woman pay is not the behavior of a king. at the same time letting her steal from you is also dense.

 

[metalwater]

Incorrect. What you are proposing is contributing both, your money and your time, whereby a woman only contributes time.

With respect to women extracting resources and time in exchange for sexual access, you must not be a student of history. The idea of a man having to exchange resources for sexual access is a relatively recent one and is an unfortunate byproduct of capitalism. Before the 19th century, it was actually the other way around. A man would receive financial contributions from the bride's family in exchange for agreeing to take her as his wife. Watch the movie The Last Duel. Theres a great scene there where the knight negotiates a dowry with his future wife's father. He basically tell the father that he wants more land or he's not marrying the b!tch. That's how things used to work for much of recorded history. The "value" that a man would provide to a women was protection. The value that a woman would provide to her man was, first and foremost, her father's financial resources.

doesn't work these days; women can't find their father so no one to contribute. albeit in the past I found womens fathers very much wanting to help and provide.

 

[zinc4]

Incorrect. What you are proposing is contributing both, your money and your time, whereby a woman only contributes time.

With respect to women extracting resources and time in exchange for sexual access, you must not be a student of history. The idea of a man having to exchange resources for sexual access is a relatively recent one and is an unfortunate byproduct of capitalism. Before the 19th century, it was actually the other way around. A man would receive financial contributions from the bride's family in exchange for agreeing to take her as his wife. Watch the movie The Last Duel. Theres a great scene there where the knight negotiates a dowry with his future wife's father. He basically tell the father that he wants more land or he's not marrying the b!tch. That's how things used to work for much of recorded history. The "value" that a man would provide to a women was protection. The value that a woman would provide to her man was, first and foremost, her father's financial resources.

That was because he is a knight. Knights had high appointed status. You think a peasant would have that same negotiating leverage? Once the woman gets with the knight she is protected physically and financially for like unless the knight were to disgrace himself and family somehow.

Marriages world wide have always been based on practical business decisions along with strict societal rules and not passion. And for the most part that system worked much better than what we have today. The reason is no matter who you marry or how much attracted to eachother you initially are, it is always going to end in both you barely tolerating eachother and going to end up as either a good practical business situation or in most cases now a days time financial ruin for the man.

As far as paying for with time as opposed to money. Which would you prefer. Four dates where you both go dutch and sex close or a first or 2nd date sex close and you shell out $60 to $120 for drinks and a good time. I am going the the second option every time. My time is much more valuable to me than the costs of a few drinks or even a dinner and drinks.

 

[Bokanovsky]

That was because he is a knight. Knights had high appointed status. You think a peasant would have that same negotiating leverage? Once the woman gets with the knight she is protected physically and financially for like unless the knight were to disgrace himself and family somehow.

Yeah but his wife was of the same social status. She wasn't some peasant woman marrying up - she also came from an aristocratic family. If this was a peasant marriage, the husband may not have gotten land but he would get a cow or two and perhaps a few goats. Things still largely work this way in some places (i.e Afghanistan). The concept of men "buying" sexual access with financial resources is not a natural one.

 

[2Rocky]

 

[DonJuanjr]

I don't think, darn I am getting a bad deal if a buy dinner. At the same time, I don't use it as a bribe.

Wouldn't it only matter if the female sees it as a bribe? Then, all of a sudden, you're lower value regardless of your motivations. Thus risking time/money on many "one date, no sex, no second dates."

 

[BillyPilgrim]

I've noticed african-american women tend to want prospective lovers to take them out to eat before 1st-time sex, it seems more of a "respect" thing than "trying to take advantage" thing

 

[oldmanofthesea]

It being over a month since your first date means she has low interest. My response either way would be the same, but my decision on whether to pay for anything would be different.

As a man, I expect to pay for a woman who *I* invite out, and it's easy for me to do that. Nothing fancy or expensive needed, but a couple of drinks on a first date. Maybe drinks and some appetizers on a second date. Whatever. But that's if things are progressing normally.

On the other hand, a woman who takes over a month to agree to a second date with me and does it with the "potentially" joking stipulation of free food is absolutely not going to get free food from me. And honestly I wouldn't be pursuing a woman that long anyway - would have generally moved on to greener pastures before then. But either way, my response to her would be the same and that would be to joke about it.

Her "I'll go if you're buying"
Me "Oh sure babe, I have a coupon for Boston Market. I'll get the mashed potatoes and you can have something of equal or lesser value."
And I'd take her somewhere free and if the date went well I'd at most buy her one drink.

Her "Haha funny" = No response from me

Her "Haha funny. But seriously where are we going to dinner?"
Me "Wherever you're buying babe! I'm into equal rights so figured you'd want to pay this time."
Her "What?!"
Me "Alright, well, you know what it's going to take to get me out on another date so let me know. PS if you are looking for ideas, I like pasta"

It is possible that she felt you were too much of a nice-guy type after your first date and is looking for more masculinity. When women feel that way, if they still engage you at all, it's usually to try to see if you'll stand up to them so they can confirm their assessment of you. You can be light-hearted while also standing up to them and this is the route I go early-on because it's better for my mindset and happiness, and it communicates I have control of my emotions and don't get upset over small things.