I’ve made my thoughts about who pays on the first date pretty clear. But I have been party to conversations with women who say they would like it if the man did pay. Without judgment, I listen and there is something of a tear between the mind and heart.
They class themselves as modern and subscribe to a lot of the feminist ideas (mind) but deep down in their (heart) they would like the man to pay. I can see they are conflicted about the whole thing.
No better to see some of this than in the guardian piece Is it wrong to resent going Dutch on a Tinder date?
It started successfully enough. The conversation was flowing in the semi-swanky restaurant my date had invited me to. We talked jobs, family and travelling. He wanted nibbles, I picked at them and, when the bill came, I offered to split as I always do. But later, when he got uncomfortably touchy-feely on the dance-floor (there was live music) and asked me back to his (I politely declined), I was weirded out – but not all that surprised.
Although I have to say @GeorginaLawton does point to some of the power struggle I have heard my friends talk about. (although I have to say, going to a semi-swanky restaurant on the first date and getting touchy-feely is certainly a problem regardless)
Would I have been less offended at his suggestive behaviour if he had whacked out a wad of £50 notes? Admitting “yes” suggests that I’m prepared to let dating turn into a “buy and sell service” placing myself as the “commodity”
And this is the issue!
Taken in isolation, going Dutch and being asked for sex are two semi-expected outcomes of a mad, mad, Tinder-tinted world. But combined with all of the above, they create a cringeworthy hybrid of poor dating etiquette that is worthy of ghosting, where you simply disappear (don’t ever ghost – it’s brutal).
I blame Tinder for a lot of things but this isn’t a time for blaming Tinder or any other site/service (although I’d love to)
This is a societal legacy and I feel it has some similarity to the Stockholm syndrome. Turning dating into a buy and sell service, as Georgina admits is exactly what it use to be and there are still echos/reflections of this in dating and way beyond in society. Back then things seemed simpler, the man bought the dinner therefore proving he was interested, could pay for the women and his statute in society? (i’m trying ok…). Legacy & nostalgia is hard to get over but it is the enemy of progress.
I certainly wouldn’t blame Georgina for how she feels, I understand but I don’t agree. I guess the fact she can verbalise it is a good thing and maybe in the black and white of guardian she will shake off the shackles of the legacy past?
Its almost perfect Guilty feminist material.
