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

[2Rocky]

This is all that needed to be said. Thanks for proving my point.

But across the board i'm well in the plus column. Enough that it was worth it....

 

[Billtx49]

But across the board i'm well in the plus column. Enough that it was worth it....

Yep, life’s not always about 1+1=2. It’s about doing what a man enjoys doing with others regarding his time and money…

 

[Striker_93]

Most girls require some initial investment when dating. It is standard.

Its standard when there attraction level is not high....

 

[Bokanovsky]

But try as I might, when a man requires ME to pay after HE asks me out, it doesn't leave me with a good feeling. I wish I could change that feeling, but I can't, it's like engrained within me to feel that way.

Oh, I undersand. But on the flip side, consider how a man might feel about the pressure to comply with an outdated and clearly unfair social convention. Especially in a situation where it's not clear whether there will be a second date. Perhaps this is why "going on a date" is a dying concept that is being replaced with "hanging out" among the younger generation. It just doesn't make any sense in the contemporary context.

 

[Bokanovsky]

The men I date are actually happy to pay. Call them chumps or whatever but there is a payoff for them too, I am not naïve enough to believe they pay from the goodness of their hearts. There IS something in it for them when they pay and I am sure I don't have to spell out what that is.

I understand that the concept of trading sex for financial resources (whether you get paid in cash or with food and drink) is not a new one. You may well be right when you imply that most women are essentially prostitutes at heart. And I don’t have a problem with that. The real problem is the bait and switch.

 

[SW15]

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.

Bad sign. A woman that's interested is not going to piisss you around for a month and then demand free food.

Definitely was a bad sign.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.