• Let me let you in on a little secret

    Yes..... Yes they should. Listen, son, you're the one that asked the girl out, you're the one that's gotta pay. You don't take a woman out to a restaurant and expect her to pay. Like you be tripping at a Cheesecake Factory, and you're gonna make your grate pay twenty bucks for the meal you invited her to? Good luck getting second date. This is just a general philosophy.

  • Chivalry should prevail

    The man is supposed to show himself as a gentleman and able to take care of his woman, if he doesn't pay then he's just making himself less if a man in a woman's eyes. It may seem archaic but its hardwired in a woman to find a provider and for a man to provide

  • Be a friggin man

    You take that girl out, then you gotta pay. You wanna second date, then pay for the friggin first one. It's called an investment, son. Only under the pain of no second date do you make it sneakily pay for that first date. Other than that be a freaking man and make a freaking investment.

  • It Perpetuates Sexism

    I think that women really need to decide what it is they want. Do they want to be treated as equals? Or do they want to be treated as a dependent, as someone who is lesser or needs to be taken care of? While the implications of a man paying for the meal aren't entirely sexist, the premise of a man being required to pay for a first date is just ridiculous. In some instances, it is appropriate. In others, it's appropriate for the woman to pay, and in others, they should split it. There should be no general rule saying that men should pay.

  • Not as a rule

    Whilst there are many many situations where I DO believe it is appropriate for the man to pay on a first date, it should NOT be an automatic assumption. It could be deemed as an attempt to appear generous and as an attractive, kind person; but since this expectation falls far more heavily on the man it is clearly rooted in tradition, and therefore as an act to appeal chivalrous and as a "provider". Whilst there is nothing in itself wrong with that (and in many modern relationships this is still the role in place), those women who crave gender equality and yet cry foul when a man does not offer to pay for her dinner are sending out some very mixed signals. Whilst men continue to have higher salaries than women, that is likely to endure for far longer if there is a general expectation for men to bankroll their partner.

    The formality of the first date is factor in this: if a man has asked the lady out and they have a brief drink in a bar, this is an appropriate situation for him to pay - mainly as he invited her out and the emphasis on chivalry in a casual drink setting is diminished. However you would equally expect that she would pay for the second date, should it also be a casual "getting to know you drink".

    A dinner date is a far more formal "relationship interview", without the quick exit possible at almost any stage of a casual drink (let's face it, no-one can leave after the starter without causing embarrassment). Both parties are putting far more of themselves into it, why should either expect a free meal ticket? In the modern city dating scene, having two or three first dates in a week is considered proactive and perfectly reasonable if you are searching for the needle in a haystack. If these are all dinner dates, is it fair for the girl to assume she will get everything for free? Should the guy budget to cover all food, wine and tips and reduce his dating availability accordingly? Splitting the bill, or at least genuinely offering to, shows you are both independent and there for the company, not just the food.

    I don't object to the man paying on a first date, it is often a good move, I object to it being assumed. Kindness is a virtue and whether you pay, she pays, or you both split the bill, it should have nothing to do with chivalry.

  • This is a desire of choice up to the men themselves.

    I believe it shouldn't be any day necessary to pay on dates. Especially on the first ones where that's only the relationships getting started. Women should have some pride and courtesy of their own to understand that even they have to pay for their own uses and needs. Money doesn't grow on trees, we work hard enough for them. We work to pay of our expenses -- unless it is requested by the other (and you still have a choice whether to lend or not), this should never ever be necessary.

  • Because they don't have any money at the time

    I don't think they should because the man is probably young and probably doesn't have much money and needs to save up for more important things. I think that they should share the payment so not only does the man keep his money, they couple can begin to work together and trust each other, and if you trust that person when it comes to money, then something is going right!

  • Not as a Rule

    Never should it be assumed. Whoever did the asking out should pay. Simple as that. Now that opens the can of worms over social norms saying that men should be the aggressors and instigators in the relationship but that is a separate issue. Whoever asked should at least be willing to pay, or split the check.

  • Its to old

    Bob the builder once said let there be light. Then batman was all like nope. Chuck Norris killed the 5th man in the tuba. This cat can talk about fish like all day long. Why would Dora go to the mountain today. I was told the lake was for today.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Bullish says2013-11-14T20:34:25.477
Another non-question. Asking this is like asking "should people who own cars wear hats". Not only is the first part irrelevant to the second part, the answer would also have absolutely no objective meaning.