From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:13:40 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

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

}In article <d2uo03boc5gW00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
}>krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
}>
}>}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".
}>
}>Still, however diplomatically you may put it, I have to say that actually
}>suggesting that your date treat you the next time is one of the most crass
}>things I've ever heard of.  But then, I suppose that given how vitally
}>important this "issue" is to you, how your date reacts serves as an
}>effective filter for you.

}It is a rather effective filter, as I have no desire to go out with
}somebody who thinks that she is "too good" to treat a man every
}once-in-a-while.  

I have already posted agreeing with you that it's not nice to go out
with a woman who has some kind of an attitude on this subject, like
it's her due to be treated or that she's "too good" to treat.  But you
seem to keep changing what you're saying.  Up above you say that you
make a point of suggesting *at the end of the first date* that the 
woman treat next time.  Now you're talking about the woman treating
"once-in-a-while".  To me, those two are rather different attitudes.
I couldn't be happy long-term with a woman who never wanted to treat
me.  But I think that the end of the first date is not the appropriate
time to get into that subject, nor do I think it's valid to assume that
she'll never treat just because she doesn't offer on the first date.

Maybe you missed my earlier post.  Briefly, I think that our difference 
is that you think of paying for a date as a generosity on your part, and
the *only* response to that generosity that satisfies your idea of
reciprocity is that the woman pay her share (or pay for the next date).
I think of paying for a date as something that I do because I want to
do it, kind of loosely as a gift to the woman.  In that respect, if the
woman offers to split it, to me it's sort of like she's refusing my
gift.  I would much prefer that she accept it in the spirit it's given
and just express gratitude in some way (simple "thank you", conversation,
a kiss; *not* sex, for those of you thinking that).  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.

}Whether you belive it or not, there _are_ kinder,
}gentler, ways to _suggest_ that somebody treat you on the next-go-round.
}The way that you put it, it sounds like an ultimatum, and I don't
}operate like that.

The way you put it, with that "hasta la vista, baby" line, *you* made
it sound like an ultimatum.  I mean, you made it about as plain as can
be that if the woman isn't willing to treat you to the *second* date,
then you don't want to see her again.  If that isn't an ultimatum,
what is it?  I don't care how kind and gentle you *suggest* it to
the woman, the attitude you expressed above is that the woman either
pay for the second date, or there *is no* second date.  So how did
I get wrong how you "operate"?

--James Preston