So Who Pays: First Meets

(I wish this place had a Lifestyle Philosophy section, but I digress)

So being the Old School Bastard that I am, I got to thinking about how a first time, face to face, meet would go. Now yes, a good deal of those happen at group munches and what not, but in the old days, we would meet for coffee or dinner one on one. Enviably this would lead to who pays for what. I would offer to pay for it all; they would want to pay for themselves. Sometimes I would win, sometimes not.

Now I never expected to "get" anything for my expense. I just had a firm belief that being the Dom, it was my worry. It is sorta an Honor thing for me.

My personal take is rooted in old school chivalry and dating ettiquite; that being, the male sub always pays because tradition and chivalry demand it and the female domme expects it. In your case, if I was a female sub, I would expect the dominant (male or female, in this case, YOU) to pay, simply to show that the dominant is taking care of their subs.

I view payment as a form of power exchange.

Personally, financial service is a limit; I’m not interested in a dynamic where I'm expected to provide nor do I expect to constantly be provided for as a rule. I’m perfectly happy to cover my own way.

That said, I do see a Dom offering to pay as a gesture of chivalry and generosity. I recognize it is a cultural norm in dating culture.

If I consent to someone paying for me, it’s not about the money though... it’s a sign of trust and a signal that I’m interested in exploring a deeper connection. It is really a matter of negotiation.

i was nodding off and saw this great forum piece. Firstly, in my submissive and possibly chauvinistic view. Women cannot have it all- demand to be treated equal, have all the benefits of a Man, have the lead and the say, the expectations, claim independence and expect a ride to be picked up, or valet service, fine dining and a show of exceptional quality. Then expect a chivalrous kiss or peck the cheek followed by 3 more luxury and expected dates before blacklisting the Man in the entire community as a cheap bastard.
I always will offer heartfelt to pay half the bill and encourage what and where he desires to eat and remind him i am easy to please and not particular or fussy. I will manage to find something even if just a coffee and a danish or muffin or special bread. i can judge immediately if this is offensive, not preferred or regarded as an insult. I will then agree and be very thankful in a cheerful but not overly gratuitous way. I will also quietly lay the tip of 15% and stand graciously after Him and walk slightly behind and to the side. Smiling and representing my pride and place. Diner is a whole slew of responsibility. The bill is ultimately His say, but my genuine offer is non negotiable. Paying is acceptable only on the condition of His acceptances or insistence. I return this by remembering who i came in with and am leaving with- always a lady, who knows how to make Him feel a leading important Man- my half of the bill or not.

I am far from what once was referred to as a "social butterfly". Direct communication one on one with me is cumbersome, but the few times I join someone for coffee or a light lunch, I found that it worked best if who pays for what was something communicated before the fact. This avoids any discomfort or disappointment for either or both parties.

I never took it as a "power exchange", though, everyone has their own way to go about this.
For example, when someone would write, "How about lunch, on me?" I would indicate that I prefer to split the tab and the tip. However, if they come back with "Oh but I insist. No strings." I'd go along with it "This time". Then of course at the lunch I would point out the cheapest-but- reasonably-edible shit on the menu and communicate that I eat lightly.

That usually settled the matter and there were no hard feelings (that I knew of), certainly not on my side of the table.

-------------

Aside from that, there's no rule against being an old school bastard in my book.
I respect matters of personal honor and such.
It's just that if I pay my own check, I can point to whatever I want from the menu and IF it turns out to taste like dog food in disguise (Like the much-maligned school lunches of yore) --- the other party won't feel bad as I wince and make faces while I eat. I will always clean my plate because I learned at a very early age to avoid wasting food at all costs. I'd much rather split my forehead open than waste food.

------------

Disclaimer: This post is just my personal opinion. Individual results may vary

I was taught the difference in reading the intent in between the other wanting to have separate bills and paying for you in phrasing. Automatically, assume you both pay your part. But if they specifically say that they are inviting you to x, that means they are treating you to it, that means they want to pay for it.
Accepting being paid for depends on how confortable I feel toward the person.
I can see offering as being generous or imposing an action due to romantic feelings.
I don't see what's potentially chivalrous about paying. Providing has a value, yes. But to call it chivalrous sounds like ego boosting to me.

Chiming in after thinking a bit. For a first meet, I think standard application applies: what would you do with a good friend? Offer to pay and if they decline just flow with it. But I lean more traditionally as in "I'm the man and the more Dominant in the equation so I should be offering to cover the engagement." No insult intended, just how I view the situation.

On a first meet, I can completely understand both parties wishing to pay their own way and it makes sense. No one is "obliged" towards anyone else.

But I think we should all go into any first meeting without expectations so it shouldn't matter who pays. As I'm apt to do, I agree with Miki above: deconflict prior to meeting to manage expectations. In setting up the meet, if you are the individual requesting the meet, offer to pay. Or simply put it out there - we're going Dutch!

Being in line with "old school", I lean towards the Dominant or Domme covering the bill if it's appropriate. No strings attached.

As for the topic of chivalry, it's simply the act of being polite, kind and unselfish often attributed from men towards women but not necessarily limited to men. It has nothing to do with ego boosting beyond being a gentleman because there is no expectation of return for a chivalrous act. You simply do it because you feel it is proper. If you expect some return or acknowledgement, then you aren't performing a chivalrous act - you are simply performing.

I'm a Domme, and always make it clear to the sub from the get go that if they want to meet, they treat me to lunch
If they ghost me; didn't want to know them in the first place
Easy peasy...