From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 29 Dec 92 00:23:49 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:

}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. . . 

Hey, whatever works for you.  Saying the above will also effectively
filter out women who might think that asking such a question is just
plain rude.

}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.

Well, perhaps part of the problem here is that you are just more impatient
than I am.  When I'm dating with the purpose of finding a long-term
relationship (which is almost always my purpose in dating), my immediate
goal is to try to get to know the woman as best I can.  The more I know
about her (and vice versa), the better I will be able to determine if
there is a possibility for something long-term.  As such, I'm willing
to invest a little (both money and time) toward this goal.  If the
woman turns out to be someone who "thinks that it is _your job as a man_
to spend money on her", I feel very confident that I will discover that
about her over the course of a few dates; I just don't see the need for 
this one "litmus test" right away.  Your way, of blatantly asking --
oh, sorry, I mean "suggesting" -- that she pay for the *second* date
just seems to me to be putting way, WAY too much importance on having an 
*exact* tit-for-tat.  As someone else recently posted, I don't place any
importance on making sure that every give and take in a relationship is
exactly 50-50.  If you do, then as I have said before, your way is an
effective filter for weeding out women that you wouldn't want.  But I
just can't help but think that, by putting *SO* much importance on
getting this 50-50 spending situation set-up right from the start, 
you will be missing out on getting to know some nice women.

}>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.  

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

And you seem too hung up on the specific semantics here.  The point isn't
whether you think of it as a demand or not, nor whether you put it to the 
woman as an ultimatum or not.  The point is that your criteria is that the
woman either offer to pay for the second date or there is no second date.
As I said, my problem with this is not how gently you may or may not 
make the suggestion, but just that your attitude is too narrowly focused
on making this one criteria the determining factor for continuing to see
the woman.

}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.

Oh, I doubt very much that this is often the case.  Given that you always
make a point of "suggesting" in some way that she pay for the next date,
I'd bet that most women are quite aware of why you don't call them again.
A lot of them might be just as happy that you don't, but I doubt many
have any confusion as to what has really gone on.

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

You got through loud and clear many postings ago.

--James Preston