This thread is so gay

[Dominic Appleguard]

Well, you're obviously being facetious...

but there have been players who came out after retirement. Collins is merely the first to do so as an "active" player, albeit a free agent.

So it stands to reason that the big four sports are not a strict no-homo-zone; what remains to be seen is whether anyone else will step forward.

[Lord Hosk]

Clearly all those other players caught gay after they left the sport.

Also for anyone who asks "why now when he is a free agent?" Nothing brings in big bucks like publicity.

[AlexanderDitto]

Clearly all those other players caught gay after they left the sport.

Also for anyone who asks "why now when he is a free agent?" Nothing brings in big bucks like publicity.

That second point is a good point, though I can't imagine good publicity about being courageous and whatnot wouldn't help lift the publicity of any athlete, especially in, say, hockey, where there's been a big effort to promote equality. And the longer you wait, the better the chance you'll get beaten to being first. Not that it's a race or anything.

but anyways I digress, one of the comments about how "being gay doesnt make any sense because..." was something to the effect of "on the first date who pays, cause normally the guy would pay but if they are both guys do they double pay or if its two girls to do they just skip out on the bill?"

But it made me wonder and since I have never been on a first date or talked to a guy about his first date I have no idea. Is there any "normal" for who pays on first dates? Of course the baseline for the idea of "normal" is the guy pays for the first date being "normal" so doesn't always happen but its KINDA expected unless otherwise stated.

"If it's two girls do they just skip out on the bill" is probably the stupidest and unintentionally hilarious thing I've heard all week. "Sir, we've got another table of two WOMEN trying to order lunch!" "KICK THEM OUT RIGHT NOW!!! BEFORE THEY GET THEIR HANDS ON ANY OF OUR DELICIOUS FOOD"

In all seriousness: in many circles, especially if the people involved are somewhat progressive and not super conservative types, (or if you're young and poor and probably go on a lot of first dates because internet dating is very spotty and you can't afford to pay for tons of first date meals) it's becoming "normal" for people to "go Dutch," a.k.a you split the bill. Or, if you both offer to pay and you like the person enough to go on a second date with them, you tell them "don't worry about it, you can get the next one," thus securing another date. This is becoming true even among opposite gender couples.

In general, and this may seem a little duplicitous of me, but I always offer to pay, and expect them to do the same, at which point we either split or I tell them to get the next one. If they don't at least offer, it's a pretty big red flag for me.

(The guy I'm currently seeing, by the way, passed this test with flying colors. We generally alternate paying, since I definitely plan to continue seeing him. :B)

[Lord Hosk]

See I thought the other side of it was funnier, "oh look to guys sheepishly eating together, they are going to leave one of those 100% tips since they both pay"

[AlexanderDitto]

See I thought the other side of it was funnier, "oh look to guys sheepishly eating together, they are going to leave one of those 100% tips since they both pay"

I just imagined lesbians and every pair of women friends who want to go out to brunch together getting chased out of a restaurant and I thought it was funny.

But yeah 100% tips that's just good for business! Invite all the gays to your restaurant! Gays welcome here!

[tak197]

So I was reading a incredibly stupid anti-gay facebook post that my wifes cousin posted with all the "hurray" "thats so true" from people who are convinced that all gay people are just uncontrollable sex addicts who have been rejected by the opposite sex because they are out of control, which makes perfect sense, I mean what dude would want a chick that just wants sex all the time, she better go find another chick to be with.

but anyways I digress, one of the comments about how "being gay doesnt make any sense because..." was something to the effect of "on the first date who pays, cause normally the guy would pay but if they are both guys do they double pay or if its two girls to do they just skip out on the bill?"

But it made me wonder and since I have never been on a first date or talked to a guy about his first date I have no idea. Is there any "normal" for who pays on first dates? Of course the baseline for the idea of "normal" is the guy pays for the first date being "normal" so doesn't always happen but its KINDA expected unless otherwise stated.

Again, from Adventures in Gay:



In all seriousness, these people on your wife's cousins FB are fucking idiots, not only because of their homophobic sentiments, but because they still believe that the social rules of dating from the 50's still apply 100%. What happens when two gay guys go out? Same as when two lesbians go out, which is the same as when a straight couple goes out: they decide at that moment who is paying, and usually that is the person who invited the other out OR they go Dutch and both pay for their parts.

Unfortunately, for me and my BF, he's the one who pays most of the time because he has more money on average to spend.

[Lord Hosk]

my BF is the one who pays most of the time because he likes blow jobs quite a bit.

FTFY!

[Drinnik]

On a first date, I think it's just polite that the person who did the asking should pay. If someone asks someone out and then expects them to pay, that's a little unfair.

[Avistew]

When I saw the question, I didn't realise it applied to same sex couple. And I wondered how you never went to a first date but then ended up married

I'm straight, but the way I see it is the same as has been said on the thread: if someone invited, they tend to pay, but then people pay every other time. If one person is much richer, they might get the bill most of the time. And if you're not expecting more dates you might split the bill instead, but personally I don't like doing that because there is too much math involved.

Mind you, in my current relationship I don't really pay for anything. Not having an income except welfare, and pretty much spending it all on the tickets to visit, I can't really afford to pay that often... Sometimes when I pick up lunch for both of us or something, I'll pay, and I do when I'm explicitly the one treating him out, but otherwise he tends to pick up the bill.
I would say that I expect it to change once I have an income, but... by that point I expect us to be married with a joint account so it wouldn't make a difference anyways.

[cuddlyblade]

With me and my former boyfriend apart from a couple of times where I bought him a coke at a bar, both of us just payed for ourselves. Neither of us had the money to play for ourselves and the other person and tbh neither of us would have let the other person pay for us either.
Come to think of it I don't think i've ever let anybody pay for anything like that for me.
Edit: Then again i'm not sure that anything I ever went on really counts as a date.

[Avistew]

Good point. Every "date" I've ever had was with someone I lived with. I'm not sure if it still counts as a first date or if it's supposed to be one of the first times ever you meet them or something... not that I'd ever want to date someone I don't already know.

[Duckay]

This is another area where communication does great. I know that in the past when people invited me places that I couldn't really afford, I felt incredibly guilty about letting them pay but also certainly not in any financial situation where I could reasonably offer to cover both of us. And vice versa; there's been situations (romantically and non) where I wanted to pay and had the other person get uncomfortable about it. Communication helps, both before you set the date and when you're discussing paying.

[AlexanderDitto]

Good point. Every "date" I've ever had was with someone I lived with. I'm not sure if it still counts as a first date or if it's supposed to be one of the first times ever you meet them or something... not that I'd ever want to date someone I don't already know.

................................
................................
................................what

The point of a date is to meet someone. In particular, if you're doing online dating, after chatting for a while, if the person seems nice you will arrange a date at which point you can meet in person and see if you get along.

If you're already living with someone, it hardly counts as a first date, I think, because you're bringing all of this past experience and expectations and things.

Also I'd like to point out that not everyone has the luxury of having a huge pool of "compatible" people that they know and are around all the time. As a straight person you have it a bit easier. Even now I only know a handful of gay guys in my area, and a bunch of them are already seeing someone. It'd be absurd for me to expect to only go on dates with people I already know.

---

Re: the person who does the invitation should pay, this is another hetero-normative patriarchal thing, I think. If you're in a situation where it's not just one person doing the pursuing, it's often hard to say who did the inviting. Imagine an exchange where you've been talking for a while, and you get to this point:

Person A: We should meet up some time!
Person B: Yeah! We could get lunch or coffee or something.
Person A: That sounds like a good idea. Could you do lunch? Maybe Thursday or Friday?
Person B: Ah, can't do Thursday or Friday. How about Saturday? Maybe around 12?
Person A: Sure! That sounds good. What type of food? Maybe... of course!
Person A and B: BRUNCH!!!
Person B: There's a really great place on 21st and Sandsom. But if we're doing brunch we have to get there earlier, so maybe 11?
Person A: I've always wanted to try that place! Yeah they're always super crowded. I'll meet you there Saturday at 11 then!
Person B: Sounds good!

QUIZ:
Question 1: Who did the inviting?
Question 2: Why does anyone eat anything other than brunch?

(It's always brunch because brunch is the most fabulous meal, of course. )

[cuddlyblade]

The point of a date is to meet someone. In particular, if you're doing online dating, after chatting for a while, if the person seems nice you will arrange a date at which point you can meet in person and see if you get along.

Perhaps i'm wrong but i've always known a date to be when people who were interested in each other wen't out somewhere with each other regardless of if they already knew each other or were boyfriend or girlfriend/insert any other couple type you like or were doing it for the 5 millionth time.

If you're already living with someone, it hardly counts as a first date, I think, because you're bringing all of this past experience and expectations and things.

I disagree. Mainly I think that dates are about getting to know of your compatible with
a person or not and not necessarily getting to know them for the first time.

Question 1: Who did the inviting?

I'm gonna go with person A as they were the person who came up with the idea of meeting up and i've always gone with the person who came up with the idea,

(It's always brunch because brunch is the most fabulous meal, of course. )

Only if there's bacon involved otherwise it's strictly average.

[Avistew]

Oh, I know I'm unusual, and I'm not saying anyone else should do the same. As for my pool being big, I don't know, I've only been interested in a handful of people, and all the ones I asked out said no. The two I did end up dating, it happened organically so neither of us asked the other out. And I've never been asked out by someone who wasn't a complete stranger I wouldn't have felt safe being alone with (which happened a couple of times).

Anyways, I understand that people see dates as getting to know each other. But I find the whole idea of going to dinner with someone I don't already know I'm compatible with awkward. I imagine it becoming like an interview, but for a relationship rather than a job. I'm much more interested in getting to know people as friends first, in larger groups, and then start dating if I'm in love with them and want to spend time alone, and already trust them enough for that.

I certainly don't expect that to work for everyone. It's just that I, personally, am just not really interested in relationships for the sake of a relationship. So my default is "not interested in a relationship" and it only turns into "interested in a relationship" if I meet someone I don't want to live without.

Anyways, that's completely off topic. I'm sorry if I implied judgement at any point. I know that people do look for partners, and doing it through dating seems like a perfectly fine way to do it.

[Drinnik]

Re: the person who does the invitation should pay, this is another hetero-normative patriarchal thing, I think.)

No, no. It's called manners and is the polite thing to do. If you ask someone out and then expect them to pay, it's kinda a dick move and more than likely you won't see that person again. I use your in the general here, not the specific.

Also, in answer to the scenario, that's a situation were you go Dutch. It's not asking out on a date, it's arranging for a meet. If A had said, "would you like to go out for a meal/drink/activity?" The. It should be A that pays.

Also, my husband and I never actually went on a date until we'd lived together. Granted our situation was not the norm, but that's the way it worked out.

[AlexanderDitto]

Re: the person who does the invitation should pay, this is another hetero-normative patriarchal thing, I think.)

No, no. It's called manners and is the polite thing to do. If you ask someone out and then expect them to pay, it's kinda a dick move and more than likely you won't see that person again. I use your in the general here, not the specific.

Does this apply to friends, or just dates? Because a friend of mine says "Hey, let's go see Iron Man 3," I am not expecting for them to PAY for me to see Iron Man 3. It's like "let's go enjoy this activity together." It's not like they're offering me a gift that I'm accepting. :/

Also, in answer to the scenario, that's a situation were you go Dutch. It's not asking out on a date, it's arranging for a meet. If A had said, "would you like to go out for a meal/drink/activity?" The. It should be A that pays.

Also, my husband and I never actually went on a date until we'd lived together. Granted our situation was not the norm, but that's the way it worked out.

Person B literally said "We could get lunch or coffee or something." So by your criteria shouldn't B pay? In what situation do first dates not play out the way I described? Who would say to someone, as an offer for a first date, "You are cordially invited to Chez Restaurant at 11 AM on Thursday for a meal!" O.o I would not go on a date offered like that.

The point of a date is to meet someone. In particular, if you're doing online dating, after chatting for a while, if the person seems nice you will arrange a date at which point you can meet in person and see if you get along.

Perhaps i'm wrong but i've always known a date to be when people who were interested in each other wen't out somewhere with each other regardless of if they already knew each other or were boyfriend or girlfriend/insert any other couple type you like or were doing it for the 5 millionth time.

Sorry I shouldn't have shortened it to just "date." I meant "first date," since that's what we were talking about. Yeah, these days, everyone calls every outing where they go some place with another person a "date." But I think that's ridiculous. Saying "Two people going somewhere together" is a date is putting all sorts of weird pressures on that interaction, like there's expectations built in. Which just sucks.

If you're already living with someone, it hardly counts as a first date, I think, because you're bringing all of this past experience and expectations and things.

I disagree. Mainly I think that dates are about getting to know of your compatible with
a person or not and not necessarily getting to know them for the first time.

You're telling me that if you're living with someone you wouldn't know if you're compatible unless you went out to a restaurant with them??? I'd say that living with someone for a week probably gives you more information on compatibility than going out to a restaurant for a few hours.

[Drinnik]

Re: the person who does the invitation should pay, this is another hetero-normative patriarchal thing, I think.)

No, no. It's called manners and is the polite thing to do. If you ask someone out and then expect them to pay, it's kinda a dick move and more than likely you won't see that person again. I use your in the general here, not the specific.

Does this apply to friends, or just dates? Because a friend of mine says "Hey, let's go see Iron Man 3," I am not expecting for them to PAY for me to see Iron Man 3. It's like "let's go enjoy this activity together." It's not like they're offering me a gift that I'm accepting. :/

But there is no romantic impetus with a friend. There inherently is with a date. The whole point of asking a person out seduction and romance. You are asking them out in an effort to try and impress them. You do not impress someone by going, I want to have an intimate, romantic meal with you, but you are paying. With a friend, there is a complete lack of romance so you obviously shouldn't expect your friend to pay unless they implicitly say, "I will pay" or similar.

Also, in answer to the scenario, that's a situation were you go Dutch. It's not asking out on a date, it's arranging for a meet. If A had said, "would you like to go out for a meal/drink/activity?" The. It should be A that pays.

Also, my husband and I never actually went on a date until we'd lived together. Granted our situation was not the norm, but that's the way it worked out.

Person B literally said "We could get lunch or coffee or something." So by your criteria shouldn't B pay? In what situation do first dates not play out the way I described? Who would say to someone, as an offer for a first date, "You are cordially invited to Chez Restaurant at 11 AM on Thursday for a meal!" O.o I would not go on a date offered like that.

In your scenario no one has stated who would pay. The is no expectation that A or B would pay for the other. However, in a situation like that, one would assume that one of them would at the very least offer to pay for both as a gesture of friendship or to indicate on a very basic level that they are interested in being a part of the others life and wants to show that they can take care of them and treat them well.

The point of a date is to meet someone. In particular, if you're doing online dating, after chatting for a while, if the person seems nice you will arrange a date at which point you can meet in person and see if you get along.

Perhaps i'm wrong but i've always known a date to be when people who were interested in each other wen't out somewhere with each other regardless of if they already knew each other or were boyfriend or girlfriend/insert any other couple type you like or were doing it for the 5 millionth time.

Sorry I shouldn't have shortened it to just "date." I meant "first date," since that's what we were talking about. Yeah, these days, everyone calls every outing where they go some place with another person a "date." But I think that's ridiculous. Saying "Two people going somewhere together" is a date is putting all sorts of weird pressures on that interaction, like there's expectations built in. Which just sucks.

If you're already living with someone, it hardly counts as a first date, I think, because you're bringing all of this past experience and expectations and things.

I disagree. Mainly I think that dates are about getting to know of your compatible with
a person or not and not necessarily getting to know them for the first time.

You're telling me that if you're living with someone you wouldn't know if you're compatible unless you went out to a restaurant with them??? I'd say that living with someone for a week probably gives you more information on compatibility than going out to a restaurant for a few hours.

Well, if you know you want to spend your life with someone, but don't know them very well, going on dates when you live together strengthens the bond and allows you to be involved in your partners interests and find out if you enjoy them.

[Dominic Appleguard]

Really, the weird thing is that we still expect men to pay for everything on hetero dates. I'm not sure whether it's a manliness thing, a chivalry thing, or what.

I guess that it would suck if you split all the bills and your date thought you were a cheapskate and you never saw her again. But that just means we do it because we do it, which is pretty silly if you think about it.

[Dubious_wolf]

I was taught that the guy pays for the date (and typically that means asking for the first date, I'm a busy man, I ain't got time to wait around for you to make up your mind)
So I guess I'm living in the fifties. Cause I always pay for everything.
On the other hand I rarely buy drinks for random women when we go out carousing. So I guess that's the flip side?
I don't know. I always thought proper date etiquette and social protocol was a big waste of time.

[Avistew]

Honestly, about the person asking being the one who pays, I agree it's fuzzy. I'm mainly thinking of cases when someone invites you, you're a bit uncertain and then they say "come on, I'm inviting" or something. Then they totally should pay because they basically said they would.

On the other hand, if someone says "wanna get together some time?" that doesn't mean they're going to be able to pay for your share of everything you guys do together. Thought I have to admit, if the guys offered to pay, I would accept it and not feel embarrassed by it, and if the guy offered to split, I would think it's fair enough, but at the same time I would wonder if it means I did something wrong and he's not planning on getting another date.

All of this implies someone I don't know, though. When it's someone you know, you can easily talk about these thing. "Who's paying?" and the like isn't really awkward then... and really it should be anyways, it's a legit question, but yeah, it can be.

[Drecon]

When my current girlfriend and me went on our first date she offered to split the bill. I actually made a counteroffer that I would pay this time and she would pay on the second date.

Worked like a charm, as I got a second date out of it.

[AlexanderDitto]

But there is no romantic impetus with a friend. There inherently is with a date. The whole point of asking a person out seduction and romance. You are asking them out in an effort to try and impress them.

Whoa whoa whoa hold your horses Casanova. Maybe this is where we're having a fundamental disconnect. When I go on a first date with someone, it's because they seem interesting and I'd like to get to know them more, not because I want to marry them.. I've been on plenty of first dates where the person seemed great on paper/in messages, but in person they were an eldritch horror. Going on first date != seduction and romance.

Well, if you know you want to spend your life with someone, but don't know them very well, going on dates when you live together strengthens the bond and allows you to be involved in your partners interests and find out if you enjoy them.

How can you know you want to spend your life with someone without knowing them very well???

What if on the outside they seem nice but in reality they are filled with slugs???

[Psyclone]

Hey man. I happen to like slugs.

[cuddlyblade]

You're telling me that if you're living with someone you wouldn't know if you're compatible unless you went out to a restaurant with them??? I'd say that living with someone for a week probably gives you more information on compatibility than going out to a restaurant for a few hours.

I dunno about that. I've known people who have lived together in dorms or similar area's who don't really know each other despite the fact that they pretty much live together. Also a friend of mine lived with and was friends with another guy for 4 years before he found out things about them that would have affected any relationship if they had had one. So not necessarily true I think. All depends on how open the person in question is and how much they really want to tell you about themselves. Lots of stuff I only found out about good friends that I only found out because I was dating them.

The person seemed great on paper/in messages, but in person they were an eldritch horror.

The exact reason I have no interest in online or similar type dating and much prefer to meet people in person. Even if it does mean that my potential dating pool is much smaller.