Bad Manners and Brimstone

Some background. I have a friend "Sam". When we go out, we normally just pay for our own meals/drinks/coffees, etc. However, there have been a couple of occasions in the past where I've taken Sam out for her birthday, and paid for both our meals (and movie tickets on one occasion). Sam doesn't really reciprocate when it's my birthday, but that's only because I normally choose to celebrate my birthday quietly with my partner instead, not because of any failing on Sam's part! (Sam herself is single, so doesn't have a partner to celebrate with).

Yesterday we had a conversation which can be summarised as follows:

Me - "Hey, there's a great new little restaurant on ABC Street. We should try it out sometime."

Sam - "Yes, that sounds lovely. It's my birthday in a couple of weeks. Let's go there to celebrate!"

Me - "Sure, sounds good."

Now I'm wondering: based on past practice, did I put myself on the hook to pay for Sam's meal and drinks here? I don't mind, as I can easily afford it, but I'm wondering what the etiquette is in this situation? Should I offer to pay for Sam? Would it look churlish if I didn't? Or do I attend with the mindset that we'll be paying for ourselves?

(Note, if it makes a difference, we won't be going on Sam's actual birthday as it falls on a work night, but rather, a few days later on the weekend.)

(Note 2, Sam and I don't normally exchange birthday gifts, so that's not really a factor here.)

I agree, you are not on the hook to pay. Your decision to pay every year is an annual decision and you get to change that whenever you want. You can pay every year. You can pay on odd years. You can never pay again. I do not think that any of those options are rude.

I think since you asked and have also set the precedent of taking her out for her birthday, she may be expecting it now.

You say there have been a couple of occasions where you've paid so I assume not every time? Either way, there should be no expectation on Sam's part for you to pay, especially because she never seems to reciprocate. Even if you go out with your partner on your actual birthday, surely she could take you out to celebrate on another day. (Hmmm posted this same thing as I was typing.)

But anyway, no, I don't see you as being obligated in any way. It's very nice and generous if you want to, but in your place, I probably would not as I'd want to end the expectation.

Buying drinks or dessert is a good idea for this one time. After this, I probably wouldn't do it anymore at all.

1. You could pay this time, and when your birthday rolls around say "Hey Sam! Where are you taking me out for my birthday?"

2. You could say nothing, and when it is time to pay, say "Your share is $18. "  "Oh, I thought you were treating." "Oh, I didn't think we were doing that anymore for birthdays."

3) You could pay and stew a bit.

4) You could say up front..."Drinks are on my for your birthday!" or "First round is on me for your birthday!"

5) You could pay and give Sam the gift of someone paying attention to them on their birthday.

You have to decide if you want things to change...if so, you need to change.

I really like the wording of #4. Light and breezy and sets the expectation clearly without rydfling feathers.

In your shoes I probably would pay since I'd set the precedent; a meal for two is not something that will dent my budget.  It does seem ungracious that Sam never reciprocates -- she may not buy you a birthday dinner but she could send some sort of treat, or even just a card, or offer a rain check for a movie night. 

(As a solo woman myself, I hate it when women who are single expect marrieds to do more than their share of check-grabbing, on the assumption the married have two incomes to cover bills.  I recall one couple I know sort of dropping a woman who seemed to go into near-child mode when out with them, expecting everything to be covered.)

To stave off awkwardness the night of the meal, consider texting or e-mailing a day or so ahead:  "Sam, still on for 7pm Tuesday?  Looking forward to it -- and in honor of your birthday, the drinks are on me!"

I like getting in front of it regardless of what you decide.

I agree with the bolded. I have a friend who's family says, "You make more, you get the check." And they walk straight out. Even when it's no one's bday or celebration. They just expect her to pay for all of them.

 One of my friends didn't reciprocate this year on my bday. (I treated her last year and, while I'm thinking about it, she got one of the most expensive dishes on the menu.) When she suggested we go out for my bday, I assumed she was reciprocating and then she asked for separate checks and I thought, "Great. This will save me money."

Based on the other thread, I would be incredibly surprised that you would quickly learn that she didn't have any money on her for this occasion and fully expects you to treat on her birthday.  I'm not sure how you know that you make twice as much money as this friend, but it shouldn't really matter.  It is not your responsibility to provide food, drink and entertainment for her.  I'd treat this time, but after this I wouldn't and I would tell her exactly why.  Gently of course, but I'd let her know.

Quote

But since I responded with "Sure, sounds good" to her suggestion of celebrating her birthday there, I'm wondering whether I implicitly agreed (without intending to!) that I'd be treating her, based on past practice.

I would say that certainly you did. You have created an expectation that when you invite her to a restaurant for her birthday it's your treat ; even a non-sponger would be entitled to assume that this invitation was on the usual basis. If it is not, it's on you to state that very clearly beforehand.

(Strictly speaking, she didn't even really do wrong by assuming this would be a birthday treat, if you regularly offer this; she might see it as letting you know she wouldn't expect you to treat her to another dinner a few weeks later.)

In your place I think I would just treat her to a 'birthday dinner' this time as you have done before - there is really no way to say ''this is your birthday dinner but this time I'm not paying for it'' without sounding mean . If you still want to keep up the friendship but not routinely all at your own expense, you'll have to suggest eating out together on non-birthday occasions, stating clearly before hand that it's on a Dutch-treat basis, and checking every time before you sit down at the restaurant that she has the means to pay. If she has just talked herself into believing that the reason she never pays is that you are willing, indeed happy, to subsidise her, learning consistently that you aren't may induce her to pay her way. If you find that she simply doesn't want to go out with you if it costs her anything, you'll know exactly what her affection is worth.

Re: the first bolded - on this occasion I wasn't intending to "invite her to a restaurant for her birthday". I was only speaking generally about a new restaurant which recently opened, and how we should check it out sometime. If I'd wanted to specifically make it her birthday celebration, I would have said so in the first place.

In hindsight, I suppose I could have said: "Actually, I didn't intend this to be for your birthday celebration, but if we do go there for your birthday, let's go Dutch." But how to say that without sounding mean-spirited and presumptuous?

Re: the second bolded - I don't regularly offer this. As I said previously, there are some years I haven't offered, and Sam has made other plans with different friends for her birthday, and some years where she hasn't done anything at all.

Re: the third bolded -  100% agree. If/when we go to this place for Sam's birthday, I'll be fully prepared to treat her. I think if I don't, it would come across as rather harsh.