A Wisconsin woman recently sparked debate on Twitter after sharing a direct message that showed a date seeking financial compensation for their failed date. Alex Colboth of Milwaukee was left startled when the Tinder match requested that she cough up half of the money he had spent on their dates as it’s only fair.
Alex Colboth of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, was left baffled after her Tinder match demands a $35 refund for ditching him after their third date
Alex’s screenshots only identify the frugal date as ‘CK,’ and his message reads: ‘Hi Alex, hope you’re doing well. Would you mind letting me know what your Venmo is? The reason I ask is that since you and I won’t be seeing each other anymore, it’s only fair to ask for equal payment from you from the dates we went on.’
‘It’s the audacity for me.’ Alex captioned her post
‘I believe it was three separate times we went out bars/restaurants where I paid for us both each time. I’d say $35 is more than fair for your food and drinks that I got you during those dates. I view you as a fair girl. I hope you will consider reimbursing me. Thanks! (sic).
It turned out an unlikely repayment will be happening anytime soon, mainly as Alex captioned the tweet: ‘It’s the audacity for me.’ Since sharing the text exchange, Alex hasn’t responded to the request for comment, but Twitter users have unsurprisingly weighed in, with suggestions that she should consider the restitution.
Twitter users reacted with suggestions that she should consider the compensation
‘I can’t see myself being this petty, but what’s the issue? He’s broke and isn’t getting any value for you, lol.’ A user wrote. A second added: ‘I have never personally done this, but I think it’s OK. CK managed to say something uncomfortable, was honest about what he was hoping to accomplish and did it respectfully.’
Nonetheless, some users heavily disagreed, suggesting that he should never have offered to pay if the gesture was a conditional one. ‘Him asking for the dates to be split evenly isn’t the issue here. It’s that he waited until after he knew things wouldn’t continue to ask. So he wasn’t paying to be nice in the first place; he was paying with the expectation of some reward (sex, companionship) which is weird.’ A third added.
Some users heavily disagreed, suggesting that the date should never have offered to pay if it was a conditional one.
A fourth tweeted: ‘Don’t say you’re going to pay for something and then say NVM after the fact. He decided to pay for their dates tf. If he wanted to split, he should’ve said that prior.’ While a fifth added: ‘Dating is like gambling. You put your time, money, whatever into it, and sometimes it doesn’t work out, and you leave empty-handed. You made the decision to spend money, and now you’re mad you didn’t win? The casino doesn’t owe you s***.’