My rule, back in the day, was to watch like a hawk for signs that he was going to grab the check. If yes, say, "I've got the next one," and then actually do pay next time. If he's not lunging for it, then offer to split it. (This assumes that you didn't ask him out, in which case you're responsible for lunging for the check.)
But I am gauche.
I don't think there's one standard thing to do. You signal what you want to signal, and make certain statements, via the gesture you choose, about what dating you will be like.
Huh. I actually insist on splitting the bill. It's odd, because I go for it, assuming that the guy will want to pay, too. If I grabbed the check and he let me pay the whole thing, I would think that was quite peculiar indeed.
Anyway, I don't put up a huge fight; shit, if someone really, really wants to buy me food, go ahead, but I put forth a real effort to split, not a fake one.
I think that the only important thing is that you have sex with him if the dinner's any good. (If it's bland, underdone, not quite fresh, etc. -- of course not!)
This is an area of neverending friction. I always offer to pay half, unless the guy has pre-scooped, and then I just say thank you. I don't think I've ever said "I'll get the next one," (perhaps often because I'm not sure if there should be a next one). When I first started post-college dating, I used to insist on paying half, leading to some near arguments over it. I found this rude on the guy's part (though it may also have been rude on mine). You should be trying to make the other person comfortable, and if she seems to really, really want to pay for her food, you should let her.
Always offer to split the bill. Don't listen to anyone who tells you differently. If he asked you out, he'll always refuse.
Huh. I actually insist on splitting the bill. It's odd, because I go for it, assuming that the guy will want to pay, too. If I grabbed the check and he let me pay the whole thing, I would think that was quite peculiar indeed.
I prefer alternating hosting, rather than splitting each meal. There's something sort of cold about saying "I'll pay for what I ate, you pay for what you ate." But if you're going to bring up splitting, you should -- you're right that a half-hearted offer to split is bogus.
No matter what the situation, I always offer to pay the bill (when eating casually [e.g. not a business dinner]). I offered to pay for dinner when my girlfriend, her father and I went out, knowing full well he wouldn't let me. I don't think it's necessary, but it shows... I don't know exactly what, that even if you expect them to pay, you aren't forcing them, I guess.
I've actually had the experience of having been asked out to a moderately expensive restaurant of the guy's choosing, anticipating that the guy would be paying for it, and then letting me pay for my half of the check. I was kind of annoyed.
I operate with two principles: 1) The person who invites is the person who pays; and 2) the other person should ALWAYS offer.
I think there are courteous, thoughtful ways to indicate that you are more than willing to pay, even if you know full well that the other person is likely to pick up the tab. There's a difference between using eye contact and voice intonation as you say "Please, let me--" and just grabbing for the check, and frankly I think the first one sometimes a *better* proxy for figuring out what this whole ritual is supposed to reveal.
I'm speaking here of first dates/early dates. If a relationship is honest, in my experience, you can get past the paying awkwardness pretty quickly. Plus, you're seeing each other frequently enough that it all sort of evens out.
N.b. I do not live in NY.
(Also, sometimes I offer to leave the tip. In fact, I usually carry small bills just to ensure that I can do that.)
With it's just one friend, I like to rotate the payments (I'll get this one, you take the next). With a group, splitting the bill is the norm, I think.
My offer to split is not half-hearted, just one I know will probably get refused. I would be fine with splitting, especially in New York where prices are ridiculous.
You...make certain statements...about what dating you will be like.
So much low hanging fruit available for this one...must refrain...
9: How many more dates did you go on with those guys?
9: Well, that's the reason for the 'host pays' rule, it's lousy for the person who picks the restaurant to unilaterally impose their budget on the other person, particularly if it's spendy.
As a male of the species, I advise to go with SomeCallMeTim. Always offer. If he accepts, don't go out with him again. If he refuses, say, "no, really." Then graciously accept his next refusal. Please be kind to dumb animals and don't offer to pick up the tip as a compromise; it creates all sorts of dilemmas in the mind of what is after all a simple creature.
People have different ideas about money and paying and being paid for (obviously, as this thread itself shows)--and different ideas of what dating is about--and the idea is to find someone who matches or understands your own.
If you view dating as sort of like sightseeing--if you're seeing a lot of people at once, in a casual way--I can see not wanting to pay for it.
13: none. This was one guy. He wasn't interested, and I guess letting me pay was his way of showing it. I wonder if by Silvana's reasoning I either shouldn't have made a half-hearted offer, or should have been full-hearted about it. Under normal circumstances, I would have been happy to pay, but my dinner was thirty dollars and I just wouldn't have chosen a place like that if I'd known I was picking up my half of the tab. Also, it was revealed in date conversation that he was in a much more secure place than I was financially, and that actually factors into my calculations.
I'm occasionally blindsided by the Unfoggetariat's decisions regarding the issues about which earnestness is permitted, or even required.
Offering to split the check is insulting? When did we enter bizarro opposite world?
There's an old thread somewhere where Yglesias notes (I think accurately) something about the signaling effect of paying the bill (as a male), namely that you're announcing that it's an official date rathern than a casual eating together.
If he accepts, don't go out with him again.
Now that is nonsense. If you make an offer to split the check, there is not a blessed thing wrong with anyone accepting it.
17: What was worse, too, is that I was attracted to him, and since I can never eat when I'm in the first throes of attraction, I didn't even get to consume much of my 30 dollar dinner.
18 -- Yeah. The seriousness with which people -- otherwise seemingly sane, competent people of both genders -- take this question always astonishes me.
(But then I was never so successful on the dating front.)
Offering to split the check is insulting? When did we enter bizarro opposite world?
I can follow this reasoning -- a meta-message of splitting the check is "I don't want to owe you anything; I don't trust you with that much power over me." Of course, a far stronger message is "Here's some money," which ought usually to override the slightly negative message above. But that negative message is why I prefer alternating, rather than splitting -- it works out the same financially, but it isn't as cold.
You all are my kind of people when it comes to this. I mentioned "the offer" in a group of six people (men and women) and they were just all absolutely horrified that I would do it. It was like "No! No! No! You must stop that RIGHT NOW! We need to have an intervention!" I'm so never listening to those people again. (And now I feel really guilty about the dates I went on where I took their advice.)
I should add to 16 that with dating as sightseeing, you wouldn't even make the gesture to pay. And some guys like a woman who is like that, who gives the impression that she has lots of engagements and only said yes as a favor.
21- See, again, I disagree. The world, varied, interesting, filled with different types. You, LB, can go out with the split-the-bill guy, someone who is just making a gesture will want to go out with the person who sees it as just that, and refuses it.
28: If the opportunity comes up, shoot those six people. They are hurting America.
I'm so never listening to those people again. (And now I feel really guilty about the dates I went on where I took their advice.)
Everything I need to know in life, I learned at the Mineshaft.
Generally, I buy the dinner, and she buys the nightcaps. Works out pretty nicely.
This is why "dates" are lame.
Much better is to hang out in a casual way, and gague interest. Coffee shop, activity, or the like. People don't perform well on "dates", I think. Fancy dinners are for couples. Or possibly business transactions. The awkwardness/implicit expectations of the check dilemma are a perfect example of why "dates" should be avoided.
33 gets it exactly right. "Dating" sucks.
Tia, I guess I see where you're coming from. I guess that if I was going on a date with someone who I knew had more money than me, and he knew that I don't have much money (as I'm a student), and he picked a spendy restaurant, that there would be an implicit assumption that he would pay. Then again, I try not to go to restaurants where I can't afford to buy my dinner, unless it's, like, someone's parents or something and they've explicitly said they're buying.
I also agree with ac. I think by insisting on splitting the bill, I'm signaling in some small way what kind of person I am while dating, and if they don't like that, then, tough.
I think these kinds of rules probably apply at income levels rather higher than mine. At my actual income level, I usually insist on splitting the check. Because if a date is going to predict anything about the possible relationship I'm test-driving, I'm going to want it to be egalitarian.
In my case, Silvana, I'd never heard of the restaurant. I guess I could have called them up beforehand and asked something about their price range.
My 31 year old son, my reference-point for non-avuncular reality, claims never to have been on a date. He's had his successes, but not in the form of dates. He may even have said that the word "date" is mostly used by prostitutes any more.
Hmm. I've been on dates. I certainly dated Buck (Mr. Breath, who has requested a nickname change). Restaurants and all that.
24: To me, the issue is not so much about any one date or check. It's that the process of negotiating this tells me something useful about the person. Is he socially clueless enough that he'll do what Tia's date did, and pick an expensive place that his date may not be able to easily afford? Is he so touchy about his "right" to pay that he's going to be seriously miffed if a woman pays half (or the tip, or whatever)?
Letting the check business be the be-all an end-all of deciding about a relationship is silly. Watching how a person navigates a social financial situation and how graciously or rudely they respond to their date's actions is not at all silly.
Also, what ac said. Different people, different outlooks.
What if the woman makes more than the man?
That's the only way I like to roll, ptm.
20 - w/d, I believe this is the Yglesias thread to which you are referring. It even has an appearance from our Persian friend.
25: but in 9, as described, you didn't offer to pay.
If you'll take acceptance of the offer to split the check as a bad sign, then you shouldn't offer.
44: wha? I did offer to pay, that's how I wound up paying. The bill came, he didn't scoop, I got out money, he didn't protest. I would have been fine with all of that, except that he asked me out to an expensive place.
42: If Joe D is not getting laid constantly, there is something desperately wrong in this country.
Seems a bit punitive to hold it against a fellow when he accepts something you offer.
I agree with the consensus that's forming: offer geniunely, and then accept either outcome graciously.
I can't imagine being offended by someone offering to split a check. I think I might, however, be offended by someone not offering, even if I planned to pay anyway.
46 -- I do have a very loving gf as of this writing. But you're on my list if things go south with her, Timbot.
I said I was a little annoyed, not that I thought he was evil. But although I don't perfectly remember what happened at this point, as I recall the tacit communication between us before I got out money was that he would have liked me to pay half, indicated by the bill kind of sitting there in the middle of the table with no movement toward it. So by the time I actually got out money, I was pretty certain that was expected of me.
But I disagree that he did nothing wrong. If you ask a temp secretary out to a fairly swanky restaurant, I think you should be prepared to pay, offer to reasonably quickly after the meal, and even reject the first, though not the second, protestation to the contrary.
If you ask a temp secretary out to a fairly swanky restaurant, I think you should be prepared to pay, offer to reasonably quickly after the meal,
Yes.
and even reject the first
No. It's just not on to get mad at people for assuming you're sincere. If you don't mean for an offer to be accepted, don't make it. But under the circumstances I wholly support your pique that he picked an expensive restaurant and then didn't leap for the check.
I think it's kind of gauche to immediately snatch at the bill as soon as it comes—makes a show of the money and payment aspect, for one thing—so I imagine I'd be apt to let it sit there for a bit while I went about my business before reaching out for it.
Of course I've also had the bill placed right next to me, which is a bit presumptuous of the waitron but does make things simpler.
AW is right, except about #2. It's basic manners (and applies to non-dates, as well): the person who asked is the person who pays. Why? Because, duh, if you can't afford it, you don't ask, or you choose a cheaper venue. The person who was asked has no control over the venue, so it's ridiculous to expect them to pay. Plus, it's just shitty manners: if you're the host (you issue the invitation), you foot the bill.
The reason we're still stuck with this stupid "the guy always pays" thing is because, traditionally, the guy always asked. If you get past that, it's really really easy.
If it's a mutual decision--one person says, "wanna do something?" and the other says, "yeah, maybe a movie?" and so on--then okay, fine: you split the bill, or you buy the tickets and he the popcorn, or whatever. By that point the relationship is well established and it's less of a deal.
Given that there's a presumption that the guy pays, women (imho) just have to perfect the skill of, if it's your date (you did the asking), and the server is sexist enough to still put the bill on the man's side of the table, saying immediately, "it's my treat" and reaching for the bill. If you say this seriously enough, ime, you will get only a token argument at best ("are you sure?"), because--bless them--men are more clued in than women are to the concept that fighting someone who is determined to be generous is kinda rude.
But no, if the man has asked and I have accepted, I will not offer to pay, for the same reason. I may, however, say after dinner, "would you like to go find a bar and get a drink?" in which case I pay for the drinks. (Unless you're with a guy who beats you to the punch, which is of course the disadvantage of carrying a purse. If this happens, though, I'll usually say, "but this was my idea, I asked you" and then he'll say, "oh, that's okay, it's still my date" or something like that and you've established the grounds on which you are figuring out who pays.)
It's basic manners (and applies to non-dates, as well): the person who asked is the person who pays. Why? Because, duh, if you can't afford it, you don't ask, or you choose a cheaper venue. The person who was asked has no control over the venue, so it's ridiculous to expect them to pay. Plus, it's just shitty manners: if you're the host (you issue the invitation), you foot the bill.
Yes, I agree completely.
Oh, and re. temp secretary / fancy restaurant: in theory, I'd say it would be rude for him (or whoever) to calculate the other person's net worth in figuring out whether to date them or not. In practice, I'd say, it doesn't matter: he asked, he pays. If he sits there and makes no move to the bill, you excuse yourself and go to the bathroom.
Even in England, the woman spends more on the pre-date preparations. Cash and time. A hairdo costs as much as dinner, and the man won't have one specially. The man should pay.
No. It's just not on to get mad at people for assuming you're sincere. If you don't mean for an offer to be accepted, don't make it.
I'm not talking about what I should do, but what he, in an absolutely ideal sense, should do. If you want to demonstrate the highest level of consideration for your date, whom you don't know that well yet, you'll consider the possibility that (s)he feels (s)he is obligated to offer to pay, even if it's really beyond his/her means. You'll then give your date the opportunity to fulfill his/her perceived obligation to offer, and still pay, since you picked the swanky restaurant. If courtesy is taking the path that is most likely to make the other person feel comfortable, this is the courteous path.
53: I think it's polite to take up the bill quickly, if you intend to offer to pay.
I agree with Tia's 60. The bill thing is awkward enough no matter how it's played and letting it sit just makes it even more awkward. Better to get it over with as quickly as possible.
Am I the only one confused by even in England?
I think maybe the English are presumed to be drab and unsexy.
Oh, I agree Tia: if you pick the venue, and the person you've asked offers to pay, then obviously you politely say, "thank you but absolutely not, it's my treat," and everyone is happy.
I think the upshot of this particular situation, though, is you shouldn't date the guy again b/c he's a jerk.
you shouldn't date the guy again b/c he's a jerk.
...did you? Was he?
Yeah, that's the thing, you can make an argument that the guy's technically correct, she made an offer, but if she finds it tacky, she won't date him again. So it's sort of beside the point.
(I'm thinking perhaps he was slow in reaching for the check because of partial paralysis brought on by T(itan)ia's intimidating gorgeosity.)
And I certainly agree that host is supposed to at least offer to pay the whole thing -- I'm not saying at all that you were wrong to be cross, just that accepting your offer wasn't an independent offense.
People in England generally don't formally date after the age of about 14. They hang out, they get it on, they discuss doing stuff together, but they don't much feel there's this structured situation they're in. So nobody knows how to behave, and Americans can get seriously freaked out.
In much of England people just get falling-over drunk on Friday night and if they wake up with the same person two weekends running they're an item.
Accepting the offer is a separate offense if you think the standard is that such offers are rejected. And they routinely are rejected. There is a good case that this is the standard, it probably happens more than 50% of the time.
The thing about England and sexual coupling, though, is the absence of deodorant.
Accepting the offer is a separate offense if you think the standard is that such offers are rejected.
Not if you think (as I do) that to the extent such a standard exists, it's a normatively bad standard. Humorless feminism showing through, but there's something really wrong with claiming you're willing to pay half the bill, so that you can pose as being fiercely independent and all that, but then getting pissed off if someone actually expects you to back up your purported independence with some actual money. (Note: I would say that what happened with Tia is slightly different -- she got embarrassed into offering to pay when she didn't want to (too expensive) and shouldn't have had to (he invited and picked the venue). What he did wrong was embarassing her into making the offer, though -- if the offer were uncoerced, he should really have been allowed to accept without social penalty.)
Yeah, I think accepting the offer is offensive if he asked and then, having decided he wasn't going to ask again, just pulled the passive-aggressive thing of waiting, and waiting, and waiting, until he extracted a grudging offer from Tia, which he then accepted.
What you should have done, T., is gotten up to leave and, at the door, turned around and said, "oh look, Mr. Thing is stalling when the check comes, just like he does every day!"
#73: Yeah, but LB, that scenario is only relevant if you start with a default position that the guy should always be the one who pays/asks. If you dump that and do your own inviting and paying half the time, then you're entitled to be mildly ticked when/if a host extracts a conventional polite offer from you in order to offload his/her hostly responsibilities.
host extracts a conventional polite offer
I'm really uncomfortable with the concept of a 'conventional polite offer' that conceals a booby-trap -- if you accept the freely given offer, you're a jerk. How is that polite? Again, extracting an offer to split the check on a date where you're the host is wrong, and a jerkish thing to do, but if, say, Tia had spontaneously offered because it was her habit to do so, I can't see how she could object to an acceptance. Or are you saying that it's always wrong to accept an offer to split the check when one person asked the other out as a flat rule?
Joe -- what's up with wanting your sexual partner to be deodorized? Surely coupling and eating are the definitive experiences where olefactory sensations play an important role.
This sort of debate--who invited? what's the hostly protocol? do we have the same standards?--is exactly why I insist on splitting the check every time. It's not so mechanical-feeling if you just divide the bill in two.
Just divide by two rather than totting up who ate that appetizer and who wanted dessert, I mean.
Possibly it's a bad standard, but that seems like a separate issue to me. A case could be made that manners trump feminism here, and the extent to which the insincere gesture is an established standard goes into the determination of manners. It depends how strong you think the assumption that the asker pays is.
It's complicated by the fact that money, or dating itself, is not completely sorted out as an issue free of sexism between men and women. For example (since Becks is talking about NY) to the extent that it's mostly men working on Wall Street and mostly women at, say, museums and non-profits--that's an existing disparity, which an asker pays presumption (in its way) tries to correct. It is an exists prior to and outside of the date.
The second sentence of 78 answers the question posed in the first.
The real point is that Joe D's first comment was spot on: formalized dating sucks. First date - go somewhere cheap and comfortable. Hang out and chit chat. Don't put yourselves in a situation where there will be much incentive to read information out of who picks up the bill.
Obviously the answer to this conundrum is to skip dinner and just go straight to the mommy-and-daddy dance.
skip dinner and just go straight to the mommy-and-daddy dance.
Yeah and I've never really gotten this whole wearing-clothes tradition either.
Joining late but the rule of thumb expressed in comment 1 seems a good one to me.
If the guy asked the woman out then there seems nothing wrong, to me, with him picking up the first date bill.
However, if there were to be future dates then splitting the bill or alternating it would be normal to me. I'd certainly be pissed off if someone consistently expected me to pick up the tab -- although with obvious allowances made if one or other person has a lot higher income than the other.
Also, Chris's comment in 70 is spot on.
British people think that American dating practices are kind of wierdly formalised and quasi-capitalistic -- like shopping for a lover.
#77: It's the extraction I'm putting the emphasis on, not the offer. Accepting an offer isn't rude. But I will admit that there are a lot of conventional polite nothings that I would be mildly surprised, if not offended, to have accepted, and offering to split the bill when someone has invited you to do something is one of them.
81: I really don't think it's a sexism v. manners issue (inasmuch as sexism is, in itself, rude). I'm totally chanelling Miss Manners here, but I don't see how "the host pays" is a feminist issue. Questions of who is "supposed" to ask and what one is "supposed" to do on a date are feminist issues, to be sure; but if we accept as a given that women can, and do host, and that the host is the one who selects the venue (with due deference to his/her financial situation), then the payment issue, in and of itself, should be neutral. I would never allow someone to *always* pay, but that's because I would never sit back and refuse to issue an invitation if I wanted to go out.
The worst date I probably ever had was with a guy, in high school, who I had asked out; he accepted (though it was clear he was taken aback and not all that interested) and then insisted on paying. Awful.
88- I'd say it's a far far stronger presumption that the asker pays when the asker is a man, and the asked is a woman. I'm not saying this is a good thing, or what I do. But the genderedness of it is part of the idea of the politeness or manners to a large number of people.
Just remember that you are not an American only to the extent that we've decided not to make you an American, Brit.
Mmm, seems to me Mr. Weman is no Brit but a Swede.
I'm not going to read all of these, but agree with what I imagine to have been the popular response: that it is always nice to offer to pay. I've gone on dates where the woman actually demanded to pay, and seemed offended when I disallowed it. There resulted a short bit of misunderstanding, but overall, it was quite refreshing.
Not offering on the first date would not particularly offend me; however, where there have been many dates and a relationship is underway, and especially if there isn't any income gap, I would get a bit annoyed if no offer ever surfaced.
92: then he remains a swede only to the extent that we prefer it that way.
#89: Agreed. And that, I will make a big stink about and say is total bullshit.
Still thinking about 88. It's different to argue what would be best in an ideal world, and to argue what is currently the standard right here and now in, e.g., 2006 Manhattan. Some people practice admirably egalitarian or gender-neutral policies; many, many people do not. Of this latter group, some are doing it because they don't care about sexism, but there is room here for alternate explanations. I can think of lots women I know who are perfectly independent, but still expect to be paid for when they go out, because of the way they see dating--they're not really out looking for Mr. Right, are happy enough hanging out with their friends, and really require some extra incentive to go out. It can express some hesistancy about a particular guy. Nine times out of ten, she not only didn't pursue him, but wouldn't have thought to ask him out. Paying for dinner is often the price of getting a chance.
That is, to the extent there it is still mostly the practice for men to ask women out, then that's reflected in the nature of the interaction.
Overrunning Sweden would be much easier than Britain.
Hey! Wowza! text is male! Is this previously unrevealed information?
Editing issues on many comments here, sorry.
On all my dates, I pick up dinner and she picks up breakfast.
I doubt it. I think I posted my actual name on one of these threads. And I've mentioned my cock on several others.
See, now, Armsmasher's solution is perfect, theoretically. It only runs into the snag that I fucking hate getting out of bed in the morning.
However, if a guy provides coffee, I'm quite willing to buy him brunch.
I've always presumed text was male, perhaps without sufficient justification. And I'm not one to presume the sex of all unidentified commenters, either. Then again, I also always thought (though not as strongly) that ac was male, though as it turns out (I think) that's wrong.
As for the rest of this craaazy thread, well, I have to echo the "dating sucks" sentiment. I'm a person who regularly breaks all sorts of social conventions when I'm with friends/dates, selectively and very carefully, and I think I'm better off for it. (I keep most of them of course; I just break the ones I really disagree with.) A lot of the time it comes down to simply remarking verbally on non-verbal interactions that are going on, about expectations that were presumed that I don't have, or that they have but I haven't met. And I like to avoid silly dichotomies like "dating/just friends" or "date/just hanging out" in favor of a more naunced view. If this upsets the other person too much, it really doesn't concern me. But it usually doesn't.
See, the offering is important, as it allows me to stick you with the next check. You offer, I refuse, and say "you can get the next one."
1) Whoever asks, pays. A counter-offer is a formality, like asking "How are you?" and saying "Fine." instead of a litany of complaints. Don't accept the counter-offer, it makes you a tool. Being passive-aggressive also makes you a tool.
2) Assuming this dating thing turns into a relationship, then split it or alternate, or do whatever works for you. I've been in relationships where I paid (job vs. grad student), where we split it (student & student) and where he paid (likes to buy me things.) ac's right; it's going to depend on the people and their dating preferences.
3) Pretty much the only rule is don't be a tool. This isn't supposed to be about calculating things down to the penny, and if that's your main worry, stay home.
Nuanced is sexy! Ambiguity, mystery, all good elements.
I'm fine with Ezra's 104. It's equitable and helps answer the "is this going well? does he want to see me again?" question.
107: Alternatively, if the woman chastely flashes the guy at the table, I think he should pay for the meal.
109: I don't see that ordering an appetizer should have too much bearing one way or the other.
I also always thought (though not as strongly) that ac was male
I announced that I was an ovary possessor at one point.
I don't think I've ever gone on a real "date", in a formal sense, until well into a relationship. Early on, it's much more economical to go to a concert, coffeeshop, mini-golf place, etc. Best to avoid spending large amounts before you know if it's going anywhere.It's usually more interesting, too.
111: I wasn't reading the blog at that point. You also mentioned it in the past month or so, I believe, though I don't care to google. But before that I was misled by my own presumption of maleness.
I wonder. Most bloggers & commenters are affluent, white males, or so I've heard it said. Unfogged seems to keep the affluent thing going on pretty well, but there do seem to be a lot more women here than at places like, say, Crooked Timber or Pharyngula. So it could be a lot less safe here than in other places to presume maleness.
I'm a poor, white male. Score one for breaking down stereotypes!
Part of my presumption about ac is that, if that were a nickname IRL, it would be rather male. I've known many guys with two-letter nicknames, but not any girls that I recall, though I don't imagine it's a hard and fast rule.
Beware! There are ovaries all over the place!
Testimony to the incredibly compelling nature of ogged and FL, probably.
I transcend all y'all's narrow, bourgeios conceptions of gender.
not any girls that I recall
Hast though forgotten D.J. Tanner, of Full House fame?
I don't think that individuals should be blamed for all the crimes of their nation, but you can't get away from the fact that the Swedes invented Britney Spears.
Completely true story: I worked with a woman named BJ, and she was a lesbian.
few know this, but a.c. is actually Mario Whatsisname, the actor who played A.C. Slater on the television series, Saved By The Bell.
But a.c. is a woman, you insist. Yes. Yes, she is.
120: Okay, that probably doesn't reach the level of a story, but it's still true.
Which brings us to the point that Saved By The Bell heralded the culminating stage of human culture. Saved By The Bell: The New Class was a horrible, obscene corruption of the original, motivated by only the vilest forms of avarice, lacking the wit and spirit of the original.
Saved By The Bell heralded the culminating stage of human culture
You mean, it was a sign of the end of days?
yes, for by the fact of its sheer brilliance, nothing of note could possibly follow.
for if there were another sun, behind the sun, what kind of nonsense would that be? The stars are tiny things, perforations in the night, and only the sun is a sun. Likewise we should all give up on art, for the Saved By The Bell Cast has disbanded.
When the sun goes we will cry in the night, and Screetch will sleep with Lisa, and the cow will drink its own milk. Quinine and cod's liver will no longer save us, and maggots will be where before it was lovely cakes and candies, and all, all of it will be lost.
text, I feel, is the one who most often hears that still sad music of humanity.
In fact, most bloggers are women. Something like 70-odd percent. I'm way too lazy to find my source for this, but I'm doing research on it (and I should be writing up that research RIGHT NOW) and it's a pretty recent source, one of several I've got littered across my desktop. But since Unfogged isn't peer-reviewed, I'll just let y'all take my word for it.
most bloggers are women.
If you count girlyblogs, sure.
unfogged is if nothing peer reviewed. the sad music I hear culminates with "it's all right, cause we're saved by the bell." Not anymore, we aren't.
Should I kill you now, or wait until after you've paid for dinner? Decisions, decisions.
you might disagree about Saved By The Bell, but killing me takes it a bit far, no?
"it's all right, cause we're saved by the bell." Not anymore, we aren't.
This actually gave me a chill.
"It's Raining Men???"
"Yeah, not no more it ain't!"
Ask not for whom the Saved by the Bell bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
Did anyone see the Salon article with inappropriate reactions to September 11th? It was pretty funny. One woman's was: "When I woke up this morning and they played 'It's Raining Men' on the radio, I never dreamed they meant it literally."
I remember that, Tia. I thought this one was good:
"There's always been a joke among African-Americans about black folks and white folks during a disaster. My father was quick to point out a black woman who had managed to get out of the towers when she was actually on a floor above where the plane hit and she was still trying to get out of downtown when the reporter stopped her.
The fact that tons of white people just stood there near the towers looking before they fell cracked him up. It confirmed the stereotype of white folks never thinking anything is ever going to happen to them. And since black people are used to fucked-up crap happening to them all the time they were trying to get the hell out of there.
Of course I spotted a few African-Americans looking lost. My dad just said that they've been around white people too damn long. Real black folks run. "
If one Member of a Cast doth Depart, doest the Entire Cast not Suffer? If two Members doest Depart, is the Season not Lost? If one Show Sinketh unto the Sea, I Feel its Loss, for I Watcheth no more Episodes. And therefore ask not for Whom the Saved By The Bell Tolls; it Tolls for Thee.
I have a Christian Indian friend who lived in BPC and had to stay at the Waldorf with her Muslim Pakistani roommates (the bill was footed by the roommates' company, or something, I think). So they amused themselves by creating hotel towel turbans and a bedsheet burka and dressing up as the Taliban. That would have been one for the article, if I'd known when they were taking submissions. Also, I was annoyed by the September 11th families before it was cool to be annoyed by the September 11th families. I hated the way they'd get on TV and say, "No one can understand our pain--we don't even have a body to bury." And I'd be like, not even all the other people in the world whose loved ones have died and who haven't been able to recover the bodies?
I don't know if I'd go that far, Tia, but I did appreciate the quote I excerpted because it felt very true for me -- I was one of the dumbass white people who kept standing around looking up at the building after we were told to clear the area because it might collapse. None of us believed it could happen.
So the time is past for this, but I think part 3 of 105 is in conflict with the rest. That is: the main thing is about not being a tool. If someone accepts your counteroffer, maybe it's not that he's a tool, but that he doesn't have the exact same expectations as you do, and thought that your counteroffer might actually be sincere. (IOW, I agree with LizardBreath passim.) As we can see, expectations vary. It's not like there's a formalized protocol out there that everyone accepts ("When a man sitting in a booth greets a lady, must he rise? He may half rise, and apologize for not rising"), and someone may simply make the wrong guess about what you're expecting -- of course that goes for a guy who gets miffed that the woman doesn't offer to pay a second time or whatever. Judging someone on the basis of whether they've divined your expectations is a bit toolish.
#132 was for #130.
#139: Wasn't it the dearly departed Richard Pryor who used to point out that this was why you don't see black people in horror movies? B/c they're not going to stick around trying to find out what the fuck is trying to kill them?
143 - Yeah, it's good to be reminded that not everybody has the same expectations for what certain things mean. Like, a female friend mentioned that she was inviting a guy over for their third date and cooking him dinner and one of our male friends made a crack about her getting lucky that night. She'd never heard the "if a girl invites you over to her place for the third date to cook you dinner, sex is on" maxim he was working off of and that was not what she had had in mind. (I forget how that all worked out but it was very amusing in a schadenfreude kind of way to watch her freak out about it.)
yeah, it's very interesting to see how much expectations can diverge.
i agree with pretty much everything that's gone before except that i'm surprised no one has mentioned the one big, big exception clause: it's fine to let a guy pay for you if he wants to, regardless of whether you want to continue to date or not, because it's polite and can make them happy (as long as you did counter-offer), EXCEPT if he is in some way a horrible human being. then you MUST pay, so you feel less awful about the whole affair.
also, while it's really really nice and touching when people who you know well take you out, sometimes it feels weird or uncomfortable to let near-strangers do it. that feeling of being under an obligation. so while i do let new dates do that for me if they want, at the same time i think of it to some degree a nice thing nice i do for them *as well as* something nice they're doing for me. i let them be a hero or whatever.
Wow, I thought that was pretty universal.
#146: Yes, agreed absolutely. If the person who is hosting is terribly, horribly offensive and you wish in no way to be under any kind of obligation towards them whatsoever (including the obligation to say "thank you for dinner") then hell yes you say "no way am I letting you pay for this" before you storm out in a huff.
re: 145
People get to a 3rd date and still haven't had sex with each other?
also, a question: I just had dinner with a married couple and was surprised to see, when the bill came, that they split it up and paid individually for their own meal. Am I out of the loop or old-fashioned, or is this genuinely kind of strange to continue once you've actually married each other?
(I am probably not the best one for judging these things, because I once had a joint bank account with a boyfriend -- and that seemed totally normal to me, as well as a really really comfortable solution to things like "who pays").
Genuinely, genuinely strange. Some level of seperate finances is perfectly normal, IMO, but splitting a dinner check is completely odd.
Not strange at all. A lot of married couples keep separate accounts. We used to, when we had enough money to have discretionary income, and in that case we did, in fact, often split dinner bills.
My wife and I have a joint account and I got a wierd look once from a friend out drinking one night when my wife kept coming to me for money to go to the bar. I think he thought I was being exploited in some way.
I didn't think at the time to explain that i) we have a joint account, ii) I just happened to be the one carrying cash at the time, and iii) my wife earns more than me.
And 153 is why I don't like joint accounts. I hate having to ask for money, and I like being able to take my husband to dinner once in a while (or have him take me).
If it's a joint account, why should you have to ask for money? Aren't you equally able to withdraw?
You do need to coordinate withdrawals so that everyone knows what's available. While this isn't precisely asking for permission, it's pretty close.
Ben, is there an easy way to get comments/day? Today has seemed to me to be one of the highest traffic days for a while, and I'm wondering if I'm right. Of course, since I plan on changing what period of time I mean by "a while" to fit the results, all answers will lead to me being right.
Keep in mind that the day isn't over yet.
#155, yeah, and you need to say stuff like, "I want to get X, if I do that will it cut into some plans you have for the money?" Unless the couple has so much money that they never need to plan discretionary spending, that feels like asking for money to me. Whereas if it's in my account, I know if I can afford it or not.
The best system to me always seemed like the three account system - yours/mine/ours. Individual accounts for non-essential, individual needs, joint for everything else. People use what works for them, and if it works, that's all the justification that's necessary. But splitting a dinner bill is strange to me.
re: 160
Yeah, in fact we are in the process of setting up additional 'personal' accounts independent of the one that pays the bills for precisely that reason -- coordinating spending sometimes means one or other of us has to sometimes go without things we'd really like.
As of 158, today had seen 231 comments (more now, obviously). Days which exceed this comment count are, in order of increasing date, as follows:
Date: 2005-03-17, comment count: 262
Date: 2005-03-18, comment count: 261
Date: 2005-05-03, comment count: 261
Date: 2005-06-15, comment count: 256
Date: 2005-11-10, comment count: 260
Date: 2005-11-15, comment count: 278
Date: 2005-12-01, comment count: 264
Date: 2005-12-02, comment count: 282
Date: 2005-12-16, comment count: 250
Date: 2005-12-20, comment count: 313
Date: 2005-12-29, comment count: 332
Date: 2006-01-04, comment count: 241
Date: 2006-01-06, comment count: 262
Date: 2006-01-10, comment count: 366
Date: 2006-01-11, comment count: 245
Date: 2006-01-12, comment count: 353
Date: 2006-01-13, comment count: 346
Date: 2006-01-18, comment count: 242
Date: 2006-01-19, comment count: 256
Date: 2006-01-24, comment count: 276
Date: 2006-01-25, comment count: 284
Date: 2006-01-31, comment count: 260
Date: 2006-02-01, comment count: 253
Date: 2006-02-02, comment count: 291
Date: 2006-02-03, comment count: 337
Date: 2006-02-07, comment count: 239
Date: 2006-02-13, comment count: 285
[edited to remove unsightly timestamps]
157: First day after a long weekend for many?
interesting. we didn't have the coordinating problems because it was a German bank account (we were living in Berlin together), so it always printed out the balance when you withdrew money and nobody had to do any asking. (Germans also don't use credit cards. Although you can draw a pretty big negative balance on your bank account if you want to, which is nice). We put in roughly the same amount of money, each. I could let him pay for dinner for me all the time whenever we went out ever because I am lazy... but still not feel like I was exploiting him.
it makes everything easier when the couple has fairly equal incomes, i guess.
That can't be right, Ben. On 12-2, there were more comments than that on the Innocence thread alone.
Thanks, today isn't as much of an outlier as I'd thought, and perhaps days more than a week or so ago just blend together in memory, at least in terms of how busy this site is. Now I have to make sure I don't comment more than I naturally would to artificially bias the results.
Looks like over 440 'Innocence' comments on 12-2-05.
Comments 626 through 1069 in Innocence do in fact take place on on 12-2. Apo beat me to it.
There are 562 comments on 12/2. I'll do a re-tally of commentingest days if anyone still cares.
Whoops. 564. One bug outstanding.
One bug outstanding
comments demanding
seeking a counting
of comments mounting
wondering, unknowing
about comments growing
sipping and flitting
and comments submitting
(The bug is demanding the comments, if that helps. It's an outstandingly smart bug.)
Oh wait, nevermind. 562 is correct. Yay!
The take-home lesson here is to pay attention to what you're doing when dealing with state machines.
I think it may be the number of front-page posts that's unusual today.
143: My set of host ettiquette: offer to pay, reject the first counteroffer, but when the counteroffer seems vigorously made, so much so it might be based in principle, accept, is based on the fact that people do have such different expectations. I'm defining the best behavior as that which is most concerned with the comfort of the other, in a situation when the true wishes of the other might be difficult to discern. It may be supererogatory, rather than obligatory, to reject a first offer to pay, but it's still the best behavior, and makes you seem most menschy (or frauy).
If I made a "first" counteroffer and it wasn't accepted, I probably wouldn't make a second, unless I were, say, in a foreign country in which that kind of ceremony is taken for granted.
Could that foreign country be—my own?
Because I believe that each should pay according to their ability, I expect everyone to bring a current audited financial statement.
I definitely agree that there's a kind of signalling that it's a real date when a guy offers to pay. I once ran into a guy I knew from college, when I was visting a friend in Oxford. He asked me if I'd like to get coffee. When he made me sit down while he went up to the bar to get my coffee, I knew that he was interested in me. And then, when I agreed to go to someone's birthday party, we picked up the bottle of wine at his college which he put on his tab (you don't offer to pay when someone has you to their club--unless you make it a habit of suggesting that you go there--and you'd have to settle the bill outside of the dining room) and he said that we could bring it together, it was completely clear that this was a DATE.
I do think that there are confusing situations vis-a-vis who pays in non-romantic situations. I once asked a professor out to lunch (a professor who was well-known for a certain type of feminist scholarship), and it's true that she was doing me a favor by going to lunch with me, but I was still dissatisfied wih the way I wound up hosting her. There were two restaurants within reasonable walking distance of campus, and I suggested the cheaper one with better food, but the professor said that she's had some bad beef or chicken there, so we wnt to the more expensive place with the bland pasta. She ordered one of the most expensive things on the menu. After lunch, I offered to pay the bill, and she accepted almost immediately. Now it turns out that there was some sort of fund to cover student teacher lunches (intended for group lunches which required an application so detailed it would make an NIH grant application look easy) which she knew about, and I didn't, although, when she mentioned it, I was very clear that I knew nothing about it and that the cash was coming out of my pocket. I was fully expecting to pay the entire bill, but I have to admit that I was bit miffed that she didn't go through the motions of offering to pay for her half--especially since I was a poor student, and she had ordered one of the most expensive things on the menu. I was expecting to say, "No, I insist," and I resented the fact that this part of the dance was skipped.
Back in college I was used to splitting up the bill with one group of friends where we'd all pay for what we'd ordered and split the tip evenly. But around the same time I went to dinner with a different group of friends, all of whom bought more expensive dishes than I did, plus more expensive drinks, and when the bill came it turned out that they all expected to split things up evenly regardless of what each of us had ordered. It would have been nice to have known that beforehand, as I'd have gotten something more elaborate. And since I didn't think quickly enough to hide my surprise I ended up coming off as cheap.
Also, a few years ago I thought I was alternating paying for lunch with a friend of mine but, after she paid the first time, she refused to let me pay the second time and insisted on splitting the bill (which we've done since then).
Clearly I'm never going to get these conventions figured out.
depending on the situation, the correct etiquette is to say either:
"pay that bill and I will certainly have sex with you"
or
"oh bad luck, you appear to be about to waste the price of a dinner"
depending on how you're feeling.
In social situations the one who pays is the one who has kept everyone waiting for twenty minutes by being late. In the unlikely event that there is no candidate for this role, play "spoof".
The three accounts system is definitely best. I've got my money, she's got her money, and, when we're out together, we've got our money. Most importantly, since she's paid vastly more than me, she puts more into the joint account - that way we can eat out when she wants, without me blushing and without us always having to figure out whether or not she has to sport me.
I have to pay her back in oral sex, of course.
re: 182
I find that infuriating. Having been a mostly poor student for most of the past 5 or 6 years I'm always wary about splitting things evenly unless I know this will be the case in advance.
I've been bitten a few times where I've eaten frugally in order to keep my costs down and then ended up paying for a share of everyone else's fancy food and if you query it you come across like a cheapskate. Also, to those dining companions who used to say, "what's the big deal, it's only X amount?" when "X" is larger than the amount I was living off for a week -- they can piss off.
The single most annoying thing -- and from my (Scottish) point of view, almost deserves violence -- is people who fuck with 'round' etiquette when drinking together. People who, for example, buy cheap drinks for themselves when they are paying but when it's someone else's round suddenly fancy something expensive. Or people who don't buy their round -- and no, being female doesn't bloody exempt you and no, if both members of a couple are drinking then buying a round together doesn't cut it either [I've known a few women and a few couples like that].
If you don't want drink in rounds that's fine -- I often don't if I know I am low on cash and want to regulate how much I spend -- but if you do get into drinking rounds you need to get your round in when required and not suddenly fancy a single malt when it's someone else's round when you've been drinking a cheap blend all evening.
185: Who are you drinking with? Students? Carnies?
187: What type of people actually try this sort of thing? I've been drinking wholeheartedly for well over 20 years now and I've yet to encounter this sort of behaviour (well, not since I quit hanging out with students, anyway). Who are these people who are doing it to you, and why can't we form a vigilante group to slap them with wet fish?
I'm with Reuben here, but it'd have to be cheap fish like mackerel or something. I'm not shelling out for halibut just to smack some jerk around with it, and if you offer to pay for my halibut I'm no going to bed with you either.
re: 188
Yeah, students. People with no money sometimes. I am a technically a student after all [although working full-time so no longer living on a student income].
But I've also come across it from people who are posh enough and wealthy enough that it can't just be about money.
Perhap I'm hypersensitive to drinking etiquette after years of being really really skint and finding it really hard to keep up my end in a round and noticing that others aren't, iyswim.
Chris -- wet-fish-smacking demands mahi-mahi. Or flounder.
191: They'll just think it's a big joke. Get something that will let them know you mean business.
'Postropher -- I think they would get the message when slapped with a mahi-mahi.
Jeremy, you ever seen a halibut? Big smacker.
Holy mackerel, that's a big halibut.
There is a term I think might be useful here: Schrodinger's Date. It's an event where you can't tell whether it's a date or just hanging out until someone asks.
So when someone asks, the waveform collapses and you die?
When I was in grade school (tying this in to earlier threads), I vaguely remember an art project which involved using fish as paint brushes. Not such big fish (we were little kids after all) but still.
198: To be pedantic, shouldn't it be the case that there's no fact of the matter about whether it's a date until someone asks? And I think that's more realistic too.
That really was remarkably pedantic, I apologize.
201: So this is why so many fish are endangered - kids who are too damn fancy to fingerpaint.
Or was your gradeschool somewhere where fish were easier to come by than paintbrushes?
I spent decades not-dating, partly by choice, and this thread makes me feel happy about that.
I'd just as soon study canon law at the Vatican as have to think about the stuff y'all have been talking about here. My brother got married specifically for the purpose of not having to date any more, and have heard others say that they did same. Unfortunately, marriage has its downside too.
204 -- not really, it is in the Central Valley of California, where fish mostly come by truck. The more I think about this, the more I think I am probably mistaking a memory of a dream for a memory of an actual experience. Or maybe we did an art project where we were using some scaly textured object as a stamp, and that got transmogrified over the years into painting with trout.
In the UK, no one dates. You go to the pub, get lashed (not that way, silly), and either go home together or not. Simple and relatively painless.
On the whole, British women are much more fun than American ones. (But only if you like drinking and sex.)
Unfortunately, marriage has its downside too.
Just one?
It has one enormous, complex, all-encompassing downside.
I heard a really good comedian in a NY club once who did his routine on this very subject.
His experience was that women always excuse themselves and go to the ladies' room right before they sense the check will be arriving.
They wait in the ladies' room until a PA system there announces, "TABLE NINE... TABLE NINE... HE'S PAID THE CHECK... IT'S SAFE TO COME OUT NOW."
Then they come back and say something like, "Oh, you paid the whole thing? It always makes me feel bad when a guy pays for my whole dinner."
His response: "No, it makes you feel full."
I never in my entrire life went on a date wih a woman where she offered to pay, much less would I have accepted her offer if she had. You mean you young people do that now? What's this world coming to?
