From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:37:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.201836.12373@cs.ucla.edu> gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
>In article <102594@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
>(Lauren L. Crawford) writes:

>[a story about a female friend of hers whose date did not pay for
>anything, even though he invited her out]

My problem with homey is really one of etiquette.  Homey could have:

	a) let homegirl know that another couple would be along
	b) let homegirl know _beforehand_ that this outing would be "dutch"
	   instead of "springing" it on her on-site

My problem with homegirl is _also_ one of etiqeuette.  Homegirl could have:

	a) _offerred_ to split the tab, instead of being surprised/offended
	   when it fell to her to pick up her end
	b) _offerred_ to pay for her own concert ticket in advance, rather
	   than being surprised/offended to find that homey wasn't paying
	   her way, at the door

>>POP QUIZ:  
>>1) When Sam asked Jane out again a couple of weeks later, what do
>>you think her response was?  
>
>Probably, she hung up the phone on him.
>
>>2) Do you think Jane thought to herself:
>>	a. "That Sam, what a prince of a guy!"
>>	b. "Sure hope he asks me out again!"
>>	c. "I feel like a total scumwad and intend to join a convent.
>>	    But first I hope he gets incurable hives."
>
>d. Why are men always such jerks?
>
>*****
>
>I believe she is perfectly entitled not to go out with him again, if
>she doesn't want to.  I also believe he is perfectly entitled not to
>treat her to anything, if he doesn't want to.  They'll both be happier
>finding someone whose philosophies towards spending money on dates are
>the same.

This makes good sense.
>
>The point I've been trying to make all along is questioning the notion
>of "inviter pays", if the gender of the inviter, or the invitee, or
>assumptions (which may no longer be relevant) are an issue.  

Fact is, there are lotsa' folx out there who feel that the man pays,
regardless.  Speaking for myself, only, I have a _real problem_ with this.
A lot of folx posting to this newsgroup seem to be of the opinion that
the inviter pays.  This reads good on paper/CRT, but in actual fact, it
is the man that _usually_ (9/10) does the inviting, so therefore, saying
that the inviter pays, is tantamount to saying the man pays.  It is on
_this_ account that I have somewhat of a problem with this theory.

In actual practice, when I invite a woman out, I am _prepared_ to foot
the tab, but hoping that the woman will be nice enough to kick-in
a portion of the funds (at least, the first time, anyway).  
Someting on the order of, "I'll spring for the dinner, and you can
spring for the show".  If she does _not_ "step forward", then at the
end of the date, when we are both telling each other how nice a time
we had, then if she does not come out and offer to treat me the next
time, I will suggest it.
If she looks at me like I'm crazy, it's "hasta la vista, baby".

>I see
>this as orthogonal to the notion of treating someone to an event.  The
>difference is in the attitude of the recipient of the treat; if they
>see themselves as the entitled recipient of a treat based on
>assumptions, they're not likely to be asked out again (by me).

Same here, boss!

Keith R
>
>--gregbo