"But it shows investment."

The same logic could be applied to women here. It's not a one-way street.

What annoys/agitates a lot of men about this subject is that women seem to show investment by responding to messages or calls, agreeing to dates and showing up, which is the bearest of minimums, while men have to do all of the same things - plus ultra.

"Well if you don't like it, then don't pay, but you probably won't be getting a second date."

All this is basically communicating to men is "my vagina is what's on the table here and you have to pay if you want to get in."

That being the case, the types of men that will go through these lengths to appease women are men that are only after what you're offering, which is pus*y.

Personally speaking, if I'm trying to get to know a woman better and there doesn't seem to be a connection for whatever the reason, or I get the feeling that I'm being auditioned for a role in her life, I'm less likely to want to pay for her. I only have a desire to pay for people that I feel are good people and we get along well, like friends, and it is a bit unrealistic to expect that on the first date or first few dates, provided that people are actually being their authentic selves, not censoring or inhibiting themselves, not shy or nervous, etc., or not just presenting the best image of themselves and being too nice because they don't want to face the implications of rejection.

I think it's the exceptions that "really hit it off" on the first date, but that seems to be what women expect for some reason, even without any perceived investment on their part.

So, the first few dates, especially the first date, should be dutch, and "if you can't handle that, then you probably shouldn't date."

CMV

Edit: "Whoever asks, pays" is a pointless response because men are expected to initiate as well.