I always offer to pay if she asked me out but, If I asked her out I'm grabbing the check and you'll never see it. Hell, I do that for friends I've asked to join me somewhere.

This conundrum is why I discourage doing much more than a first meet in a park, to just walk and talk. I figure if I and the other person cannot simply enjoy one another's company, without any distractions, it's not likely to get beyond that first meeting.

No pressure, no money need be spent ! And if things are obviously working well - plans can always be expanded ...

If it is a first time online date or blind date, you go dutch because those are not even real dates. You never met the person, you don't know if there will be any chemistry, you don't even know if you will want to be there. For a first real date, it is better for the higher earner to pay and usually that is the man even in 2018, but not always. Sometimes if he pays for a movie, I will buy the popcorn. For an ongoing relationship you alternate who pays but if there is a wide pay gap the alternation should be of a type favoring the lower earner. Also, if I (I'm a woman) suggest a place that is more expensive than what we typically go to I will treat him even if he offers to pay since it was my idea. What complicates this is that many guys prefer to pay and I've decided if he feels strongly about it, it's not worth arguing over, especially if I am financially strapped at the time. Wow, I just realized the way I handle this sounds complicated but

The article pretty much covers my opinion. My personal rule is... Everybody should offer; nobody should insist.

That's never a problem for me. I just tell my date to get ready to dine and dash.

First dates or first meetings are probably best if Dutch treat. I usually prefer to pay my own share anyway, but will graciously accept if my date insists on paying. And I am always grateful in any circumstance where someone treats me.

I almost always pay on a first date. I'm not offended if she insists on paying her share or all of it unless I know her financial position is not as good as mine. After several dates, I will either continue to offer to pay or suggest that we alternate paying if she has a similar income etc.

I do a similar thing with friends. If we are more or less equal financially, we take turns paying. If I know I'm much better off, I will always pay and am happy to be able to do it. If someone else is much better off, they typically pay for me.

I have always thought of a date as a party for two. When throwing a party, my concern is that my guest(s) and I have a good time. I do not expect them to reciprocate, or feel obligated to reciprocate (especially sexually).

I am a little old fashioned, and feel that the gentleman should be ready to pay for the date, especially a first one. But it is perfectly acceptable for the woman to offer to pay part of it. If she does do that, she should make sure to let the man know at the end of the date or soon thereafter, that she wants to go out on another date with him.

If it looks like the relationship is going to "go somewhere" than both people should start having a conversation about finances and their values and priorities about it.

Ultimately it is about communication. Especially in this day and age when so many things are changing about gender expectations (mostly for the better I think).

I always pay for the 1st date, it is a me thing, after that, I often pay when out, hoping the lady may cook me dinner at her place. (Single dad sick of my own cooking). Strangely, my ex stopped cooking for me close to 30 years ago, since then I have had had ladies cook a meal for me less than a dozen times. My home is quite laid back and they always prefer to come here, and thus I have cooked many hundreds of time. Not fair really.

The person doing the inviting should pay.
When someone says "let's do lunch" I see that as dutch but if I invite my friend to lunch then I pay.

I always suggest coffee or beers. It's usually quiet enough to hear each other and no one feels obligated afterwards.

I'm an old divorced lady. I have paid for my share throughout my life. Now tho I feel if someone in his
50's or 60's can't pick up the tab for dinner , he probably shouldn't go. Now...I don't pay.

Well, that didn't eliminate too much confusion, did it?

I prefer to keep dates simple and short, like meeting for coffee, when it's the "get to know you" stage. If someone insists on paying for my coffee, it doesn't result in a feeling of obligation on my part but I would expect to go dutch. Plus, I like meeting in places where a conversation can be had, so things like a movie are out. By the time I've committed enough for nice dinners and such, it should be less awkward to determine who will pay.

Have gone on a few dates and have no qualms on splitting the cost....but as stated on article most older men will not accept...

Whoever does the asking should pay for the meal. The non-paying person should get the tip. My number one rule is to never order something I can't pay for myself even if it's clear I'm not expected to pay. Rule number 2. always offer to pay part of bill.

Seems to me that for couples where both are earning, both should pay. In the past, many women had no income, hence the man had to pay.

I expect to pay at least half of the time myself, often more.

I'm never dating again. It's a friggin' mine field.

It's easy to say, "Whoever does the inviting does the paying", when 99% of dates are initiated by men, and women expect men to do all the initiating lol

I'm old fashioned so I pay anyway, but dates are ripe for manipulation for women to not pay for anything. How many women go on dates with guys they don't really like just for free drinks or meals etc? There is basically no risk for women and if they meet a good guy they are compatible with then it's a bonus.

Shouldn't people who aren't in a relationship pay for themselves at first, or offer to pay half the time? This all goes back to how society has formed opinions on these issues. Isn't the man deciding where to go and paying for everything part of the patriarchy? I thought women wanted to be more independent?

Women want men to make all the first moves including asking them out, then they want men to pay for everything, and then they want men to make the first moves when it comes to anything sexual. Men are basically at risk at all times in the dating/courting process. Then men are the first ones to be criticized for going about it in a way where a woman can interpret it as being wrong. I'm not talking about blatant sexual harassment or anything like that. There are those grey areas that I'm talking about.

Then women will think less of a man if he doesn't do things expected of a man like being aggressive or paying.

Is this conditioning or genetics? Both? I would say it's both. Conditioning is kind of in conflict with genetics here. No?

Just opening a discussion.

If I issued the invitation, I will offer to pay, but saying something like "may this one be my treat?" I don't just assume I will pay since that can also give the impression that something is owed in return. Circumstances sometimes change my approach, like when I recently met someone for brunch who I had met on this site. She had travelled a long distance, part of a longer trip, so I offered to pay for the meal.

i am old fashion. I always insist on paying. That is just one of the things that I was raised to believe in, that I still do.

That article wasn't helpful, at all. While they said less than 25% of respondents didn't say the man should pay, they didn't say the gender composition of that group. All I know is that if the check comes on the first date and the dude suggests they split it, it's highly unlikely that there will be a check to worry about on a second date.

It’s a question for the couple.

I would never expect anyone to pay for me nor would I pay for anyone else.