Debate at the stone table

I'm not one for social convention.

I don't really follow it. I'm polite, but I'm not up to date in latest social etiquette trends, and if I don't agree with a certain convention, I refuse to fall into line.

In August, I had lunch in a coffee shop with a male friend. I was surprised when he insisted on paying for what was supposed to be my purchase. He took it from my hands and wouldn't hear of it that I paid myself. I offered to pay but didn't kick up a fuss, I gave in almost immediately.

It took me a few days to look back and consider my actions. And when I did, I seriously regretted not putting up a fight. I sat down with a notepad and Biro to put my opinion together, and here's what I came up with.

"The notion that when out to eat with a member of the opposite sex, the male of the pair is obliged to pay for what the female desires as well as his own purchase - strikes me as truly medieval. In this modern day and age, post the Equal Pay Act, post feminism, post women's rights, and in spite of the many laws prohibiting unequal treatment of men and women, so many people see this as the "done thing" - merely British etiquette, a custom we are supposed to follow."

It being an issue I had become so fired up about, I got in touch with my most opinionated friend to find out what he thought of such a custom. He told me quite undoubtedly that absolutely, the convention is appropriate, and that the male should always pay.

In Costa a few weeks later with a girlfriend, I once again got my notepad out to take down her opinion.

"Megan feels the situation is conditional. She says that it really depends on the 'format' of the meeting. A traditional dinner date is one that should be paid for by the male if he offers. The custom does not apply if the relationship between the couple is non-romantic. A lunch date is the financial responsibility of both parties, but the male should pay for cinema tickets if he invites the female on the date."

For me, Megan's view sums it up - it's complicated, ambiguous and no one's entirely sure what's right or wrong.

Some say that you might damage a guy's pride by not letting him pay - that it's part of his alpha male status, and stripping him of it is immoral. I argue that what about my pride? Does it not matter that I don't want to feel incompetent, unable to pay for myself?

I'm no female supremacist. I'm not a radical feminist. I appreciate that times have hugely changed, but I still believe equality should be fought for on either side it is needed. If that makes me a feminist, I'm a feminist. I believe in equality. By that I don't mean women and men should be treated exactly the same and have exactly the same societal roles, because we are different - physically, mentally, emotionally. However, there's a line where "different roles" becomes sexism, and for me, such a social contract borders on sexist.

I'd love to end this post with a philosophical thought and a bang, but there's not much I can say.

Instead, I want the opinion of anyone and everyone who might be reading this. Let me know, by comment, email, Facebook, Twitter (@pocketsizegeek), telepathy, whatever, I'm interested in your opinions, and how you've acted in these situations in the past.

Let me know.