He didn't pay for my coffee........

[Batya33]

There is a scene similar to this in the movie The Joy Luck Club - and he tells her that she should pay for the ice cream since she is the one who eats it (and then she points out that he eats it, too). I don't think it's a spoiler to say that they divorce soon after.

[Applewhite]

Oh my god this thread has 38 pages. So anyway, you go out with him again?

[annie24]

There is a scene similar to this in the movie The Joy Luck Club - and he tells her that she should pay for the ice cream since she is the one who eats it (and then she points out that he eats it, too). I don't think it's a spoiler to say that they divorce soon after.

 

hahaha! i was thinking of that too batya! where the couple splits everything 50/50 down the middle, including strawberry ice cream, which she is allergic to.

[studcantel]

I always offer to pay on dates. I'm going on my first coffee date tomorrow and I had to think about this. It just seems awkward to pay for the girl on a coffee date. You'd have to hope you both arrive at the same time so you can go in together and order. Otherwise you have to go inside (I don't think I'd wait outside for someone outside of a small cafe), sit at a table without ordering anything and fiddle around until she comes in. If I were a girl who walked in and saw the guy had already shown up and hadn't ordered anything, I think I'd be like,"why not? It's only a 4 dollar coffee." And assuming he did actually order something, is he going to accompany you to the register and throw his debit card out there for your drink only? I don't think it's worth going out of the way to cover. Now maybe if we both finish off our drinks and agree to a second round, we can both go up together and I can offer to pay.

 

I don't think it's a terrible thing if the two people fend for themselves at the coffee shop. Now if I were to go out to dinner with her afterwards, I'd certainly grab the bill.

[Lonewing]

This is a FIRST date...not every date afterwards in the relationship - but the FIRST date!! What you do once you establish your mutual importance to each other is irrelevant!! Established couples go home and have sex every night. Does that mean you have sex on your first date too???? [i seriously HOPE NOT!!]

 

I think what this thread had consistantly pointed out is that the modern man is spineless and unwilling to stand up for himself, or at least acknowledge the equality of his partner upon the initial interview. And the Modern woman is thoroughly pleased to take advantage of this situation every chance she gets, thus reinforcing neither her own equality nor establishing that basis of equality within the minds of her men.

[Lonewing]

And there it is right on the cover....lower left, second from the bottom...in case you get distracted by the rest of it!!

 

And it's satire, if you didn't know it!!

 

image removed

 

Now what does this cover say about the modern woman? If everything on this cover is a satirical reflection of what your popular women's magazines are yoking you with mentally, it's no surprise so many of you view paying for your coffe to be such a turnoff. in short, your fortitude to stand up for yourself as an equal has been sabatoged. Why would you ever press the issue, when "No, I'm paying for your coffee" is precisely what you want to hear? And this bad behavior is being reinforced by...your popular culture!

 

If there is any truth to this...I am quite amused. Or is that bemused?

[petite]

Lonewing, why don't you buy a few of our popular women's magazine's but also buy a few of the popular men's magazine's?

 

Particularly those such as MAXIM, penthouse and playboy where women look like dolls and men expect them to look and act in a particular way.

 

PS: this over-analyzing magazine you posted as far as I know doesn't exist and was probably photo-shopped by a man. Please let's not get into biased debates. Neither sex is better, but some things and some traditions are fine in my book. too much modernity isn't always great, particularly when the world is going at a particularly high speed. Many people have forgotten basic manners and human kindness.

I can pay for my coffee, in fact I can pay for his too and for the dinner - and I do. However, it's nice when he offers and it shows he is interested, and that he had a pleasant time, and even that he is a kind and thoughtful man.

[Lonewing]

Here's my solution: I don't buy them.

 

I don't even look at them either.

 

In general, I find them ridiculous.

 

No less ridiculous than the women's mind candy.

 

Now If I pick up a magazine, it is full of metal, rubber, plastic, and octane. Not a single fleshy image in it. And the comparisons are not being made between woman A with cup size B and woman b with cup size DD, but rather, the specs between the 5.1L V-8 and the 7.0L V-10 and the sculptures they hurtle down the asphalt.

 

Now in case you did not "get" it, that magazine cover is SATIRE. SATIRE. It's a reflection upon the state of the current psyche of the American/Western Woman.

 

On a first date, FIRST DATE - the expectation by both parties in a truly Equal society is that the other person will pay for their own, even if the other person offers to cover it. This is not about basic manners or human kindness - you as a woman are equal, and it's high time you stood up for that. The expectation that I show you kindness based upon the premise that you are a woman is simply ridiculous. This idea that it is manners to give you these courtesies suggests a lack of respect by women for men - as if you're some sort of superior being. The fact that you then celebrate this activity by giving it positive connotations suggests outright misandry.

 

It's funny how the traditions that work against you must go, but the ones that work for you must stay. You want your cake...and you wish to eat it to?

 

The FIRST DATE is the key here.

[petite]

I did "get it", I realize it's a satire, which is why I said, no such magazine exists and it was created by a man. I don't find the picture funny, ironic or even sarcastic, I find it highly obnoxious and offensive.

 

Have you not realized that we don't live in an equal society? Women and men have never been equal, and some people don't want to be equal in every single aspect of their lives. Do you know when they can be equal? When a man and woman are paid equally in every single industry, when women are not frowned upon in particular industries and when a man has a monthly menses, the same biological clock and ovaries, that's when we can try to be equal. Women constantly have to prove and prove themselves time and time again, and then men say we will get to equality with paying a coffee. Please. A coffee wont give us equality or even give us a step forward.

 

You don't want to pay for a coffee, don't pay, but also don't be offended that someone is put off by it. Whether you like it or not that's never going to go away. Some people are more giving than others and some men and women don't really care about a $5 coffee, it's peanuts, and they don't lose sleep over it.

[Lonewing]

I found that cover to be higher humorous. Because in all truth, that cover tells more truth about what is in those magazines than any real magazine cover ever has or ever will. The thing about satire is that it very commonly offends those that it targets most; this piece targets the woman who reads these sorts of magazines as a general authority in her life. And further, it need not be a man who put it together; it could have been a highly insightful woman. For all you know, many of the covers of the magazines that do exist may very well be put together by men. Oh the horror.

 

It is not the cup of coffee that is the issue; it is the attitude that accompanies it. And as long as that attitude is held, true equality shall never be acheived - even if we all had our sex parts removed at birth.

[PhilliesFan001]

No, we don't live in an equal society - but women holding this attitude that they're owed a free meal/coffee/first date or anything else because they were born with a vagina is simply laughable, and only furthers that inequality.

[PhilliesFan001]

It is not the cup of coffee that is the issue; it is the attitude that accompanies it. And as long as that attitude is held, true equality shall never be acheived - even if we all had our sex parts removed at birth.

 

Agreed. Most people here have said there's no issue with the coffee itself or with the nature of giving/caring for/paying for the person you love or even like. The problem is EXPECTING special treatment because you're a woman. There's really no good argument for it other than "it's tradition" which is pretty poor and quite a slippery slope argument.

 

If a woman wants to label herself as the fairer, oppressed sex, or as the nurturer/caregiver/dainty lil woman who deserves to be treated like a princess because she was born with two X chromosomes then that is entirely her right. And it is also the right of others to think that's completely ridiculous. Makes the world go round.

[petite]

You find it humerus because it isn't targeted at men, even if a woman doesn't read these type of magazines they can and do find this type of satire offensive. It's no different than overweight people being called fat - I am not overweight, but I find it highly offensive.

 

It is the cup of coffee, the horror of a man being called a gentleman because he offers to pay for a coffee - oh the horror of being a gentleman and paying $2.50. It must really break the bank.

[PhilliesFan001]

I'm a woman and I wasn't offended by the picture.

 

Again, it's not about the money, it's the attitude. So a man isn't a gentleman unless he offers to pay? Is a woman not a lady if she doesn't offer to pay? Personally I find it rude to expect anyone else to ever pay for you, no matter what the cost, and especially if they are practically a stranger.

[PhilliesFan001]

Besides which, who says a guy who offers to pay is a gentleman at all? Based on the crazy reactions of some of the women in here, I'd say there's a hell of a lot of pressure on men to pay and treat them to things. There's always the possibility he's just doing it because he knows some women expect it, not because he genuinely wants to or feels he should.

[FathomFear]

You find it humerus because it isn't targeted at men, even if a woman doesn't read these type of magazines they can and do find this type of satire offensive. It's no different than overweight people being called fat - I am not overweight, but I find it highly offensive.

 

It is the cup of coffee, the horror of a man being called a gentleman because he offers to pay for a coffee - oh the horror of being a gentleman and paying $2.50. It must really break the bank.

 

If find your last few posts to be rather puzzling. It's like you're trying to have it both ways. You're getting offended at the satire but then presumably supporting the perception that a woman shouldn't be paying, which is what the satire is based on. So which is it?

[FathomFear]

It is the cup of coffee, the horror of a man being called a gentleman because he offers to pay for a coffee - oh the horror of being a gentleman and paying $2.50. It must really break the bank.

 

There's nothing horrorific about buying someone coffee. I do it all the time. What's horrorific is the idea that someone is owed having things paid for them because of the genitals in their pants. It's about the principle, not the difficultly of the task. I mean, it wouldn't be hard for you to bow to every guy you meet and call him "Sir". But it would still be a horrorific idea even though it wouldn't be hard to do.

[Lonewing]

Now I happen to be able to laugh at myself, so if it were targeted at men, I'd still laugh. Even if it were targeted at Men like Me.

 

You can call him a gentleman for offering to pay, but then you can assert yourself as a lady by insisting on paying for it yourself - and directing your assertiveness not just at the man, but at the cashier as well so there is absolutely no confusion about the issue. The greatest way you can enforce this is by not telling the man what you want to order, but by ordering it yourself so it's just you and the cashier involved in the transaction.

 

In these cases where I have gone on these dates, If I arrive second usually the woman already has her drink, and if I arrive early, I get my drink and find a nice table and leave it at that. She can get a glass of water for all I care; the drinks are not the issue.

 

My sole intention of the first date is finding out if this is a woman who I want to put myself into or if she's a fluke or a flake. If she's the former, yes, I'll probably be buying her things, but then she'll be buying me things because we'll have a relationship - a partnership. But until that grondwork is established, she's no more or less to me than a coworker or one of the guys. We don't buy each other drinks...at least, not when we don't know each other.

 

If it must really break the bank, then why AREN'T women asserting themselves more?

[Generation]

You know what... I'm gonna keep this in mind from now on. Next time I go on a date, I shall be the perfect gentleman. If it means bonus marks for me and getting into her pants sooner, then that $3 was worth it. Of course, I'll put on my charm and all that too, and I'll flatter her tonight, rather than have her try and impress me to see if we're compatible. Once I'm done with her, I'll move on to the next girl.

[petite]

I never said a woman shouldn't be paying, I also never said I expected a man to pay. I said I believed it is a nice gesture and I personally find it very gentlemanly, and very nice. I've said that from the beginning of this thread. I don't care which way people choose to pay for their dates, and I also don't believe that there is a cookie cutter way of paying or a one size fits all. I never said that a man had to pay just because he is a man, by I find it extremely nice and generous. I've never gone out on a date without offering to pay, ever, but then again I've never gone on a date with a stranger and have certainly never online dated, every person I have dated I've known through a friend or met at functions and such, therefore we had a prior meeting before our coffee/dinner what-have you.

[petite]

If find your last few posts to be rather puzzling. It's like you're trying to have it both ways. You're getting offended at the satire but then presumably supporting the perception that a woman shouldn't be paying, which is what the satire is based on. So which is it?

 

I never said a woman shouldn't be paying I don't care what other women do, I care about what I do. I'll pay for my own coffee, I offer to pay and if he insists I will let him pay. I see nothing wrong with that. I can count on one hand the number of times I've split bills be it with men, family or friend - we take turns paying.

The only time I don't offer paying is if I am grabbing a quick lunch with a colleague - even for business lunches it's either the client that pays or I pay for the whole table with the company card.

[tiredofvampires]

When a man and woman are paid equally in every single industry, when women are not frowned upon in particular industries and when a man has a monthly menses, the same biological clock and ovaries, that's when we can try to be equal.

 

Good call on that score.

 

Back to my earlier point about evolutionary psych (I might be out of my mind, having wisely earlier backed off this topic) --

 

There will never be changing the fact that when a woman gives birth to a child, caring for that child -- who is a 24/7 high-maintenance obligation -- is her primary focus in life. Her life cycle is built around this event and what it requires, time-wise and where she places her focus. Whether she did this as a prehistoric cavewoman, as a woman in the Medieval years of every society on earth, in traditional tribal societies that exist in the world today, or as a career-track modern woman in a First World industrial nation, the lion's share of the "burden" and moment-by-moment responsibility always has been hers first and foremost, and it always will be. We can talk about men who take on that role and couples where the roles of householder/provider are reversed, and childless couples, and couples who hire nannies or send their babies to preschool infant programs so the woman can continue to work instead of spend time with that child (and in some cases, that may be a choice -- in others, it's a necessity in the economic climate we live in), but for the vast majority of human civilization, it's centrally on the woman to care for her children with a biological urgency that is not built into even the most fatherly men. It's on her to undertake this most demanding of jobs no matter what else is happening in her life, if she wants to raise a healthy child -- no vacations, no promotions, no bonuses. A father may be very much committed to the effort, but he has the luxury of being one step away from the pregnancy, birthing and rearing process by getting out to focus on providing the funds for it all with relative lack of distraction.

 

In traditional societies, many women would help eachother carry out rearing duties, spreading the labor. In Western nuclear family societies, many times it falls onto the mother to do it all herself. They don't talk about the woman "trying to juggle everything at once -- motherhood and a career" for no reason. Such a difficulty does not face men. Men don't have to ask themselves at any point in their lives to choose between their careers and being a father (or when they do, it's to a much less determining degree). Women do often have to ask themselves this question, factoring in how much of which they are willing to sacrifice. They will have to sacrifice something, usually, while men can continue to fill both roles quite easily.

 

So if a man displays behavior that suggests he's going to be a good provider, that he is "protective" and nurturing, this is a highly desirable trait to a woman. Showing that he's more than willing to pitch in to "help" with his resources gives a woman a feeling that she will be cared for when she needs the help the most. No, this is not as strong an impulse for all women. Some women are gay, so they have no desire for a man to do or be anything at all, romantically. There's individual variation and a huge spectrum. But I think for some women, these signals are more important, and not for reasons of indoctrination.

 

The sexes can be equal, while still recognized as different. We will never be the same -- but asking for the same respect is what equality is about. The problem is not tradition -- it's the attitude of one person being less worthy of respect. Respect for your partner as a mental, intellectual equal and a peer can co-exist with traditional roles. They aren't and shouldn't be considered mutually exclusive. Conflating traditional attitudes with disrespectful attitudes is faulty reasoning, even if in some cases this unfortunate pairing exists.

 

As for the picture, I found myself laughing because I think it's a pretty good parody of women's magazines (which I find often ridiculously unsubtle and sensationalist). In one light, it could be seen as offensive and misogynist -- in another though, it could be seen as a statement about just how women torture themselves, which in an underhanded way could be taken as sympathetic. I kind of took it the second way.

[penelope13]

Cheeze. Of course women and men will always differ biologically. However, our brains have evolved enough that we can choose and adapt our behavior, we don't solely have to rely on primitive biological instinct driven behaviors anymore.

 

If you want to be considered different due to those biological differences - that is your prerogative. However, I chose to be equal and act accordingly when it comes to anything related to intellectual, cultural etc aspects - these may have some biological differences, but not so large that a conscious choice can't override initial tendencies.

 

As I have mentioned before, just because I don't expect to be treated on a first date (which doesn't mean that I would refuse if someone genuinely wants to treat ME - as opposed to me being an unknown representative of all individuals with 2XX Chromosomes) I have never felt less like a woman or was considered not womanly enough. And if there ever was a man who didn't think I was traditional enough or I was too forward thinking - he/they didn't make any negative impact on my sense of well being or my confidence when it comes to dating because I don't count the number of dates that didn't lead to anything, but rather focus on those individuals who made a real impression and impact on my life one way or another.

 

Yes, I could go through the whole history of human beings and find all sorts of different societies and thus 'mating rituals'. But I rather focus on the now and today and try to contribute to making things as fair and equal as possible with few limiting caveats.

 

If I want to claim some different rights/treatment due to my biology or my ability to bear children - I reserve that for the times when it really plays a role - i.e. when I have already decided who to share my bedroom with, who will be the father of my children.

 

At a first date, I won't even know if I will ever be in a situation with this man that my biological differences will make a difference on our interaction.

 

I truly do not require every man to 'honor' my 'biological womanhood with all its advantages and disadvantages' every time I go out for dinner or want to walk through a door, simply because it's not the most important aspect of me, an important one for sure, but by far not the one that truly defines me as who I am.

[tiredofvampires]

I truly do not require every man to 'honor' my 'biological womanhood with all its advantages and disadvantages' every time I go out for dinner or want to walk through a door, simply because it's not the most important aspect of me, an important one for sure, but by far not the one that truly defines me as who I am.

 

My post never said anything to the contrary (and I'm not sure who you're quoting -- certainly not me). Nor have any of my posts on this thread, expressing the way I conduct my dating life. I don't feel the need to defend or justify my MO, so anyone who presumes my post above about biology suggests anything that disagrees with you, Penelope, please refer back in the thread to my other posts.

 

If you cannot appreciate the legitimacy of a biological/sociological POV, that's fine. But it leaves aside a large part of the human dynamic, not just in dating or gender issues, but in any aspect of how we tend to behave and respond. The human brain has evolved -- but it has not evolved to the point that it has made itself negligible in any part of the equation.

 

Why is it that every woman on this thread who has registered the idea that she would graciously appreciate the gesture from a man to pay on a first date is preached at that she is "expecting it", "requiring it," "feeling entitled to it", exploiting the fact that "she has a vagina" or "merely XX chromosomes", etc.? This is an unfair extrapolation and misconstrued retort that has been applied to such posters' positions -- often with aggravating totalizing words like "always", "never," "every time," "all the time".

 

It may be hard for some people to deal with, but human behavior is complex and as shocking as it may seem, a woman can appreciate/accept such gestures and still be fully prepared to exhibit and embrace fiscal independence. It's possible a person can enjoy feeling a number of different things at the same time, including but not limited to: feeling taken care of; feeling the desire to take care of; enjoying the pride of independence and self-sufficiency; enjoying that another person has the means for self-sufficiency; enjoying that we have areas that are completely equal, enjoying that we have areas that complement one another. Yes, a single person can embody a whole bunch of multifaceted motivations, desires, views, feelings, thoughts and values at the very same time, and still constitute a fairly balanced and congruent whole. All these can even be present on the very same date in the very same brain.

 

I think the 2-D cardboard cutout false dichotomy being projected here that women are either choosing to be regressive or choosing to be forward-thinking is pretty limiting, monochromatic and pigeon-holing.

 

I consider progressiveness in social equality a major personal cause, until it becomes self-righteous. Tends to blow it every time for me, no matter the cause or the stand.

[tiredofvampires]

I would just like to add about brain evolution that the current brain we have is the same one we've had and been using for the last 200,000 years. No major changes in brain development since then.