My first date experience, how should I continue on?

LoveGuru

LoveGuru

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
731
Reaction score
96
Jaylim123 said:
I brought a girl to raffles place for our first date. We had lunch at a chinese restaurant but I asked to split the bill instead of me paying everything. She said ok and she paynow me right on the spot.

After we finished eating I had to go to the toilet so she waited for me outside. 5 mins later after I came out I couldnt find her so I checked my phone and she said that she had to leave because of an emergency.

how should I continue from here? Do I still have chance for second date?
Click to expand...
making love with your hand has the highest chance now
 
Z

Zianfranco Gola

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2023
Messages
398
Reaction score
217
Jaylim123 said:
I brought a girl to raffles place for our first date. We had lunch at a chinese restaurant but I asked to split the bill instead of me paying everything. She said ok and she paynow me right on the spot.

After we finished eating I had to go to the toilet so she waited for me outside. 5 mins later after I came out I couldnt find her so I checked my phone and she said that she had to leave because of an emergency.

how should I continue from here? Do I still have chance for second date?
Click to expand...
Why don't you ask her everyday?
 
Notbbfa

Notbbfa

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
17,886
Reaction score
9,915
glarerder said:
If woman purely based on whether he pays for her to classify the date to be neutral or not, she's shallow and dichotomic. That's assuming that everything else went well on that day and her decision to not date further was simply because he didn't pay for her.
Click to expand...
Splitting the bill does not automatically kill romantic interest, but it does reduce romantic signalling in many dating contexts, especially on first dates.

Calling this “dichotomic” misunderstands how humans evaluate interest. People don’t decide attraction using single variables - they infer intent from patterns of behaviour: effort, timing, initiative, and investment. Dating isn’t binary logic; it’s probabilistic pattern recognition.

This also isn’t about entitlement. It’s about expectation alignment. When a behaviour commonly associated with romantic intent is absent - and no other signals compensate - many people reasonably reclassify the interaction as neutral.

If someone chooses to reject common dating norms, that’s entirely their right. But they also have to accept that others may interpret that behaviour as lower romantic intent and disengage. That response isn’t shallow - it’s predictable.
 
Notbbfa

Notbbfa

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
17,886
Reaction score
9,915
TiedInsurer said:
Hard disagree on almost everything.

Intent can be clearly communicated by just opening the mouth and talking. If the girl failed to grasp the guy's intent, the girl is either inentionally refusing do so, or the guy has a problem with communication.

Also disagree that outcome matters more than ideology. Everyone has to make a choice on what is more important to them. Their goal of finding a life partner, even if that partner has incompatible ideology that will cause them endless grief in future. Or sticking to their guns, and live with the possibility of forever staying single as a result. Either way, everyone has to live with what they chose. No take backs.

Lastly, i believe that if someone feels that a social norm is outdated and no longer relevant in today's society, they should stand up against it. Doing otherwise is debasing themselves, because they are going against their own values to conform. It's like how women have gradually fought for and made gains in getting men to take up more domestic responsibilities. Even now, just as social norms unfairly place the bulk of financial burden on men, social norms also continue to unfairly place the bulk of domestic responsibility on the shoulders of women, and they are rightfully fighting against it, going as far as to file for divorce against men who are perceived as not being progressive enough on that front. They do what is right for them, even if that's not the norm, and even if the end result is a broken marriage and high likelihood of being alone for the rest of their lives. I applaud their resolve. It's how a society advances. When enough people signals that a social norm is outdated and irrelevant, and therefore they refuse to participate, the social norm will change.
Click to expand...
You’re conflating how dating should work with how it does work.

Intent can be stated verbally - but dating isn’t a job interview where declarations override behaviour. In real human interaction, actions carry more weight than words, especially early on when trust and context are thin. Saying “I’m interested” while behaving neutrally sends mixed signals, and people resolve ambiguity by defaulting to the safer interpretation: non-romantic.

If the girl “failed to grasp his intent,” it’s not necessarily refusal or incompetence. It’s that behaviour and context contradicted verbal intent. Humans are wired to trust actions over statements - that’s not a moral flaw, it’s basic social cognition.

On ideology vs outcome: no one is arguing people shouldn’t stick to their principles. The point is simpler - principles don’t shield one from consequences. You’re free to reject any norm you think is outdated, but you don’t get to demand others interpret your actions outside the shared signalling system they operate in.

Women who challenge domestic norms accept higher relationship friction or divorce risk. Men who challenge dating norms must also accept reduced dating success. That’s consistency.

What’s being discussed here isn’t whether resisting norms is noble. It’s whether doing so predictably affects dating outcomes. And in this case, it clearly did.

This isn’t about “simping,” debasement, or ideology surrender. It’s about recognising that dating is a signalling environment. If you choose to send unconventional signals, you don’t get to be surprised when others interpret them conventionally.

Principles guide your choices. Outcomes reflect how others receive them. Both can be true at the same time.
 
Monstruo^

Monstruo^

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
24,971
Reaction score
13,007
alex22 said:
Idk, maybe will outbid TS using CDC voucher
Click to expand...
I duno her history and never engage in her thread last time.

But I heard about her and see her face before… (head big big type) and she likes to take photo of her receipt for every meal and show online :o
 
A

alex22

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2001
Messages
26,542
Reaction score
7,668
Monstruo^ said:
I duno her history and never engage in her thread last time.

But I heard about her and see her face before… (head big big type) and she likes to take photo of her receipt for every meal and show online :o
Click to expand...
Just the thing that's needed
 
K

kyokoto

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
19,102
Reaction score
7,205
Notbbfa said:
You’re conflating how dating should work with how it does work.

Intent can be stated verbally - but dating isn’t a job interview where declarations override behaviour. In real human interaction, actions carry more weight than words, especially early on when trust and context are thin. Saying “I’m interested” while behaving neutrally sends mixed signals, and people resolve ambiguity by defaulting to the safer interpretation: non-romantic.

If the girl “failed to grasp his intent,” it’s not necessarily refusal or incompetence. It’s that behaviour and context contradicted verbal intent. Humans are wired to trust actions over statements - that’s not a moral flaw, it’s basic social cognition.

On ideology vs outcome: no one is arguing people shouldn’t stick to their principles. The point is simpler - principles don’t shield one from consequences. You’re free to reject any norm you think is outdated, but you don’t get to demand others interpret your actions outside the shared signalling system they operate in.

Women who challenge domestic norms accept higher relationship friction or divorce risk. Men who challenge dating norms must also accept reduced dating success. That’s consistency.

What’s being discussed here isn’t whether resisting norms is noble. It’s whether doing so predictably affects dating outcomes. And in this case, it clearly did.

This isn’t about “simping,” debasement, or ideology surrender. It’s about recognising that dating is a signalling environment. If you choose to send unconventional signals, you don’t get to be surprised when others interpret them conventionally.

Principles guide your choices. Outcomes reflect how others receive them. Both can be true at the same time.
Click to expand...
Good response, a guy that tries to decipher or use logic to win a woman over will lose. Women decide based on feelings and emotions.
 
XCalintz

XCalintz

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
2,355
Reaction score
1,336
Charity free meal?

She left without saying goodbye in person. Confirmed not interested in you sadly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ Forums. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts. Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards and Terms and Conditions for more information.
Top