With the recent rise in popularity of BKChat (which I am addicted to, like everyone else), I thought it would be a good idea to get a few of my guy friends involved in my blog to share a some opinions on topics a lot of us girls have questions about. For example, do guys really need to pay on first dates? (My answer to this used to be a resounding “yes”, but I’ve definitely come around over the years and realised it’s not really that big of a deal). And also – can guys and girls really be ‘just friends?’…
“In my opinion, questioning whether or not guys ‘should’ pay on the first date is already going down the wrong line. A lot of girls want guys to pay on the first date as though it’ll be some sort of signal as to what’s to come in the relationship, for example – “can this man provide for me?” They use paying to sum up a guy in one hour, but it’s not an honest signal to use and it’s definitely one that can be manipulated very easy. Lots of guys pay on first dates, some guys will even wine, dine girls and spends hundreds on them, but these same guys can have the worst intentions. So if it comes to the question of whether guys should pay, my first answer is that it’s the wrong question to even be asking.”
“It definitely is a nice thing if a guy can pay on the first date, of course, but it’s not at all a necessity, and no one should be ‘required’ to do anything. I think guys should have the freedom to choose, depending on how they feel on the date (and how much money they have in their pocket) – it really shouldn’t be expected.”
“A lot of guys are used by girls when it comes to paying on dates, and sometimes a guy may pay on a date for a relationship that doesn’t get very far at all, and they’re just left feeling very bitter, so if a guy doesn’t want to pay, I think that’s completely fine. At the end of the day, a guy paying on the first date tells you little to nothing about how your relationship will be with them, and if you’re going to dismiss guys for not paying, then you’ll probably find it hard to meet anyone decent.”
“Men and women can be just friends, of course, but it’s a different kind of friendship. In my opinion, there will most likely be some type of underlying ‘energy’ between every male and female, and that’s what makes us interact differently. For example, the way I act when I’m around my boys, is definitely not the way I act when I’m around any of my female friends (and I’m sure it goes the other way round).”
“Guys are usually going to be the ones that see things as more than a ‘friendship’, I’m not sure what it is, but guys seem to be more easily swayed in that direction, whereas girls are happy to have numerous boy-‘besties’.”
“In terms of how the friendship goes, it depends on the people in the situation, for example if you’ve spent your life at a boys-only school, you’re probably not as used to interacting with girls in a way that is purely friendly, as someone else would be that, for example, went to a mixed school. In cases like that, you’d more likely find the whole ‘men and women as friends’ thing a little harder than your counterparties.”
“In terms of a relationship, I feel like there’s less of a place for these type of friendships when you’re with someone else.”
“I think it’s important when you’re single to have some female interactions in your life – it’s healthy, it’s human. But – when you have another half – there’s really not any need to go and accumulate more friends who are girls (for example), it will just lead to issues and jealously in your relationship, which is not really worth it.”
Thank you for the tips! I personally don’t want the guy paying up the whole bill, as I’d like to create the independent image as a woman. And yes, I also believe that platonic relationship is real, and I agree that it still depends on the people in the situation. 🙂 Happy holidays!
Shall we address the topic of guys paying on a first date. To some extent I do agree with you on the fact that no one should be forced to do that and it shouldn’t be automatically be expected of the guy to pay. However, in my experience I believe it all comes down to maturity and mutual understanding. You see, if a guy is the one who has been chatting you up and is the one who instigates the date blah blah blah, he should have the courtesy to foot the bill but at the same time its best to offer as a girl to pay for yourself because at the end of the day if you ain’t an official couple , don’t be expecting privileges. I hope I made sense. A TRUE GENTLEMAN WILL NEVER MAKE YOU PAY ON YOUR FIRST DATE.
The opinions above were taking from different males haha. But either way, I do see where you’re coming from! However, a lot of the time a first date doesn’t have to be such that the guy was chatting you up a lot and basically chasing after you (in that case, I agree, it makes more sense to pay), sometimes it can just be quite relaxed and quite a mutual thing to decide to meet up (that’s what it was like when I first met up one-on-one with my boyfriend over 2 years ago now). But I also agree, don’t expect privileges. It’s a difficult one, but I do believe a guy paying on the first date doesn’t tell you long term what your relationship could be like!
Personally, I don’t care if he wants to pay but I personally wouldnt be offended or anything if he didn’t end up paying xD
One of Australia’s most influential artists, George Washington Lambert (1873–1930) was versatile, talented and prolific. His subjects ranged from striking Edwardian portraiture to iconic images of the Australian landscape, from paintings of major battles during World War I to large sculptural works created during the later years of his life.
Born in St Petersburg, Russia, Lambert migrated with his widowed mother and sisters to Sydney in 1887, where he attended Julian Ashton’s art classes. Following the award of the first New South Wales Travelling Fellowship to Europe in 1900, he spent most of the next 20 years based in London. He considered himself to be an Australian artist and finally returned in 1921.
A Man with a Rabbit is a beautifully rendered, somewhat playful portrait that is at once classically posed and relaxed — it suggests social credibility yet hints at eccentricity.
An inscription on the reverse of the canvas, dated March 1932, notes that Lambert had ‘painted a portrait group of Baroness de Neufville and two children and the “Man with the rabbit” is a portrait sketch of the Baron de Neufville’.
Painted in de Neufville’s London home, Houlgate, the painting was exhibited in the Modern Society of Portrait Painters annual exhibition in London in 1910 titled ‘Le Baron de Neufville’.
Portraiture was Lambert’s principle source of income, yet A Man with a Rabbit seems unlikely to have been a commissioned work. In her account of his career, Thirty Years of an Artist’s Life (1938), Lambert’s wife, Amy, recorded that he refused to sell the portrait to the sitter. Lambert kept the portrait until the end of his life.
A Man with a Rabbit is one of several works acquired by the State Library from Lambert’s estate in 1931.