Should a guy always pay?

Student Lounge College Life
41

<p>I think I'm from the 1950s or I just read too much Miss Manners, but the traditional etiquette rules are:</p>

<p>-Men do the asking and pay for dates
-Women reciprocate, but in more subtle ways. They magically produce tickets to the theatre; they make presents and goodies; they cook dinner.
-Both parties are well within their rights to be conscious of their budgets - so picnics instead of dinner out is acceptable.
-Women should never accept jewelry from a man they are not related to (engagement ring being the one exception).</p>

<p>After a lot of bad dating experience, I've learned that men who don't offer to pay aren't worth dating. Many (high-maintenence, often) women disagree, but I personally do not care about the cost of the date. I've dated a few men who were putting themselves through school or working in for peanuts in DC, but they managed to make the gesture - whether it be a smoothie at a corner coffee shop or drinks instead of dinner.</p>

<p>As a girl, my advice for guys is that they shouldn't date women who don't at least offer to pay, or, barring that, at least reciprocate with home-cooked meals. Most men ignore this advice - they tend to want what they can't have, and such girls give the impression that they won't settle for anything less than their overly high standards.</p>

42

<p>ya i think you pretty much are too. It was one thing to have those standards when women didnt work. But now its just sexist to have men pay for everything.</p>

43

<ol>
<li>Men still out-earn women. ;)<br></li>
<li> I'm a vegetarian. My food is cheap. If you can't make the gesture and pay the $8 for my pasta, you have issues.</li>
<li> See, the man isn't really paying for everything. Ideally, the man and the woman alternate dates; the man is really only paying 1/2 the time, so it actually balances out. One date is dinner out, where he pays; next date, she produces movie tickets and cooks a meal beforehand. (This also, by the way, ensures that both parties plan dates. :) )</li>
<li> From-sratch cooking is not cheap. When I cook for boyfriends, it's a several-hour preparation and probably about $20-$30 in groceries, plus wine. What I spend, between cost of food and time, is comprable to going out to dinner. I do cook multiple-course meals, find excellent wines & ports, and send him home with any leftovers (and they always want the leftovers). Reciprocating is not easy - grabbing half the check is easier than spending half a day shopping for ingredients, cleaning the house, and cooking appetizers, entrees, and dessert - but there is no way that it's a "sexist" system. It merely ensures that both parties contribute to the relationship. The man is, in effect, stating that his intentions are more than the physical and that he is willing to invest something; the woman is saying that she appreciates what he is doing and is not just using him for free dinner.</li>
<li> A lot of men don't let me pay. One of them said, when I took the bill (after about four months of dating), that I wasn't letting him be chivalrous. Another said, when I protested his paying on the second date, that I would be allowed to pay, whenever I am both older than him and male.<br></li>
<li> I think you missed the part where I said that it doesn't matter how much he spends. Working for peanuts? Pay for the coffee. I'm a light drinker. Buy my one, lone, solitary glass of wine. Men who can't even shell out the $5 to be chivalrous are completely not worth dating.</li>
</ol>

44

<p>I don't buy it ariesathena. I'm sorry.</p>

<p>I don't see it as an issue of "chivalry" (which I have issues with to begin with), but of common courtesy and reciprocity. This shouldn't be about being a "man" or a "woman." Moreover, I cook for my significant other as well, but I still enjoy having her pay for things once in a while.</p>

<p>And my manhood is by no means threatened by either one. I think the whole issue of which gender should pay is obfuscating the issue of, "is he/she a jerk?" That's what should be the primary concern. Not who pays for what based on what chromosomes they have.</p>

45

<p>no, but i think guys should offer to pay on the first date. If the girl says yes, do it. If girl says no, then it prob means she never wants you to pay for her food (not polite no but firm no) Geez paying for a meal is not that big of a deal whether it is a girl or a guy paying. Personally i would pay for my own food so whatever.</p>

46

<p>peter<em>parker:</em>Guys: DO NOT PAY FOR HER._</p>

<p>Agreed. There are too many girls out there (especially college age ones) that are just looking for free food/stuff without having to do anything to earn it. For the first date, each person should pay for what they ate, and I'd recommend doing this for at least the next half-dozen dates or so, if a girl can't put up with a guy who doesn't want to pay for what she eats, then maybe its better off that the two of them "started seeing other people".</p>

<p>becchalk:<em>Honestly, I think guys should pay for first dates, and when women make a dollar for every man's dollar, then I might change my mind.</em></p>

<p>Don't buy into what they tell you in Women's Studies, it's illegal to pay women less than men for the EXACT same job:
JOHN STOSSEL: Women earn less, but not doing the same work. There's this myth that women earn 78.5 cents for every buck a man makes for the same job, but if that were true, think about it, employers would hire only women. And, all the employers that hired men would go out of business because they'd be paying their workforce too much. The truth is, men are more willing to take lousy jobs, work longer, be away from our families. Women make good choices for their families and happiness, they live the best life, and that's why they earn less. </p>

<p>Plug in "John Stossel" "women earn less" into Google and start reading some of the results (the one I posted came from Media Matters)</p>

47

<p>"Any woman that won't pay for a man - is not a man herself, and should date a fish and let the man date his bicycle" Gloria Steinway</p>

48

<p>If I'm paying for your food, you'd better give my punani payment then.</p>

49

<p>UCLAri - if you don't want to buy dinner because it's "sexist" or whatever, then figure out another way of showing that you care about her in more than a friendly way. It's not that hard. In my experience, after dating a few dozen guys, the ones who pay or ask to pay are the only ones worth dating. The nicest thing that I can say about the others is that they were not brought up properly.</p>

50

<p>Some of you guys are missing the point.</p>

<p>This is why you don't pay:
1. Jumping through hoops for a girl shows you to be needy, desperate, and unattractive; this includes paying.
2. Paying establishes this mindset between both people - HOW LUCKY THIS GUY IS TO BE GRACED BY THIS FEMALE'S PRESENCE, SURELY HE IS SO GRATEFUL THAT HE WILL BUY HER THINGS AND CONSTANTLY TRY TO PLEASE HER, EVEN THOUGH HE HASNT EVEN TALKED TO HER VERY MUCH YET</p>

<p>If this is how you view dates, ie the man dances around like a monkey to please the girl, girl <em>rewards</em> guy with physical/sexual favors if she finds him acceptable, you must have issues. The date is a shared experience where both people get to know each other and try to enjoy eath other's company, and any physical intimacy is not something <em>given up</em> by the girl but merely a mutual enjoyment.</p>

<p>Btw, whoever brought up the income argument that was rather senseless. By that logic, should use the equation:
(man's salary + women's salary)/(man's salary) x 100 to figure out what percent each person pays. If the man has no job, for example, the woman pays for everything all the time! Or if she's a doctor, maybe she should pay for 80%!! Or maybe each person should buy their own stuff.</p>

51

<p>"Gentlemen prefer blondes, and blondes prefer cavemen"</p>

52

<p>ariesathena,</p>

<p>Having been in a relationship now for a LONG LONG time, I show my affection in a myriad of ways that are probably too subtle for those "on the market". However, in the beginning, even though I didn't pay for the first date, I would occasionally bring nice little gifts or do little "mushy" things.</p>

<p>I think that the idea of a firm notion of how a date should proceed from start to finish is a bit to ritualistic. I prefer to just let things happen as they happen. If it happens that someone can't afford the meal that night, but happens to have an XY chromosome set, then it's silly to expect him to pay.</p>

53

<p>Peter_parker,
I don't understand why you keep saying that guys who pay are unattractive while there are girls on here saying the exact opposite. I find guys who pay more attractive than guys who don't, unless they go overboard. </p>

<p>And UCLAri,
If the guy can't afford the meal on the first date, then don't go out to dinner. Go somewhere that doesn't cost any money. It's that simple. I don't want guys to spend an unreasonable amount of money on me. I just think it's nice for them to offer to pay on the first date.</p>

54

<p>I still don't see why the guy should pay. What if she asked ME out?</p>

55

<p>If she asked you out, like I said earlier, then she should pay or at least offer to.</p>

56

<p>Peter Parker had a valid point: however the reasons are a bit more complex</p>

<p>Women tend for the most part to follow the "chemistry" when it comes to men and relationships, and such chemistry is certainly not a volitional choice, so while women SAY they like men that pay, it doesn't necessarily improve the chemistry -and for men it risks getting them the dreaded "nice guy" tag, in other words, or sincere, monogamous, non-controlling dupes</p>

<p>This "chemistry" the women crave like a cocaine addict w/o any doubt flows not from any rational reasoning process, as genes hardly recognize modern life (which had only briefly existed in time) but from the deep logic of 5 million years of man's development, or evolution - where seed spreding (cheating in modern parlance), deceptive, controlling, and sometimes violent males - would in effect present to the mating female - better chances for their individual genetic survival, all such selections at the subconcious level of course.</p>

<p>Stated simply, "jerks" in effect generally present better odds to the female in the genetic lottery of survival</p>

<p>The bottom line is men need to let women pay</p>

<p>Therefore, they should not always pay</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
I think that the idea of a firm notion of how a date should proceed from start to finish is a bit to ritualistic. I prefer to just let things happen as they happen. If it happens that someone can't afford the meal that night, but happens to have an XY chromosome set, then it's silly to expect him to pay.

[/quote]

Yes and no. I do not have firm notions of how a date should proceed from start to finish - in fact, I got chewed out by a female friend for going on a date that was drinks and poetry. (To me, utterly geeky and romantic. To her, he should have taken me to dinner.) Nevertheless, it's a DATE. It's not time hanging out with your friend who happens to be female. Ultimately, something has to distinguish those dates from friendship - something more than the physical. In my experience, men who do not pay only want the date to be different from a friendship in one way: they want sex. </p>

<p>It's really funny how people seem to think that girls who let men pay then "owe" the men favours; it is the men who pay who are, empirically, the ones who don't pressure for the physical acts. </p>

<p>I'm with FlipChick on the cost thing. As I stated in previous posts, I don't care where we go or what we do - expensive dinner or smoothies - but I do think that the guy should pay. (I've never asked out - the state of affairs is that it takes me longer to be interested in men than it takes them to be interested in me. ) I do reciprocate; I do plan dates, do dinners, send CARE packages (um, Harry & David isn't cheap, folks), so I don't buy the line that it's all about XX vs. XY. </p>

<p>I once paid for a first date. Had been friends for about three years. I got dumped later that night because I wouldn't have sex. Pardon if I really have no desire to go down the modern, liberated woman road again. To echo the evolution argument, I engage in signalling. Much in the way that poisonous animals are brightly coloured, as a consevative woman, I need to both signal to others and read others to determine if waiting will be an issue. Men who don't pay for the first date are unwilling to wait for marriage - there's certain values that they have not been raised with. (The contrapositive is true but the converse is not true - so please, people, go over your logic rules before you attack.)</p>

<p>CitationX - are you trying to justify being a jerk? Most of the men I know who are married or in long-term relationships are truly phenomenal people. The ones who think they should be macho or jerks did well in college but are floundering for dates in their mid-twenties. </p>

<p>Peter_Parker - reverse your numerator and demoninator. ;)</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
I once paid for a first date. Had been friends for about three years. I got dumped later that night because I wouldn't have sex. Pardon if I really have no desire to go down the modern, liberated woman road again.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You know as well as I do that he was just a jerk. I can 100% guarantee you that I know plenty of guys who would have been gracious and kind. </p>

<p>
[quote]
it is the men who pay who are, empirically, the ones who don't pressure for the physical acts.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In part, I believe, because they're tied to the notion of chivalry-- a double-edged sword of sorts.</p>

<p>Ultimately, I believe in freedom more than anything; to that end, if you want to date guys who pay on the first date, then I believe you should have the freedom to do so without social pressures. However, I still believe that we're still somewhat beholden to an entrenched ritual of dating that is somewhat anachronistic and arguably "bad" today. </p>

<p>On a side note, one thing that struck me as interesting when comparing dating in Japan to dating in the US were the basic expectations. In the US, it's expected that the man will pay for the first date. Even if he lacks the funds to ask someone out-- and I've been in positions, financially, where I couldn't even afford my girlfriend a smoothie-- his not paying is a sign of disinterest or even disrespect. Japan, a far-from-feminist nation, lacks this sort of ritualized dating expectation of payment, and women are far more gracious when a date is payed for and far more open to paying for dates. The expectation of "he pays or he's a jerk" seems to be nonexistent. Not to say that I'd prefer the Japanese system- it has millions of its own idiosyncracies that are bothersome to me- but I do like the idea that there is no hidden expectation of payment on either side. If both can, they go 50/50. If not, someone will foot more of the bill. </p>

<p>Of course, a marginal analysis of real cost to both parties is clumsy and somewhat silly for a first date, but why do you even have to spend money on a first date? My first date with my girlfriend was a trip to an exhibit at CalTech, and we had a blast just enjoying the company and campus. And since it was altogether free, there was no tension over payment.</p>

<p>But I'm a reversal-romantic of sorts. I like the idea of HER sweeping me off my feet once in a while.</p>

59

<p>Explanation is not advocacy </p>

<p>The term "jerks" itself is a shortcut term primarily used by women to describe men that invariably generate the most chemistry for them, men that women appear to readily get physically involved with, and generally men that cause women to endlessly complain to others how supposedly terrible such males actually are</p>

<p>Women really are not to blame per se as they are w/o any doubt following their genetic programming, being directed by their DNA to men most likely to get their genes moved forward, although women's often vapid attempts to claim they are really attracted to mature, sincere, monogamous, non-controlling males - sometimes can be amusing and actually is fundamentally in the nature of wishful thinking </p>

<p>Substantively "jerks" are males that tend to be deceptive, usually are self-centered, often exhibit controlling behavior, and occasionally are tinged with a sort of restrained violence, and most importantly cannot commit and have a constant need to cheat wherever possible.</p>

<p>There is little doubt why that all important "chemistry" many women live for is ratcheted up by "jerks" - it is clear there is some type of connection between women's primary goal in life (i.e genetic immortality) and the fact they repeatedly seek out jerks, while simultaneously complaining about the last bad guy</p>

<p>Men that pay for dates, as I've stated, risk getting tagged as civilized monogamous males, a relatively recent invention in an evolutionary context, as w/o any doubt seed spreading males presented better odds to women in general -such male civility hardly recognized by women's genetic programming - so males that act civilized and for example pay for dates are in effect risking the very chemistry the go/no go decision of the relationship would depend upon from the female vantage point.</p>

<p>While healthy mature long term relationships are entirely different matter, in simplest terms just for regular relationships - men should not go out of their way to pay for dates</p>

60

<p>My thing is women should at least offer to pay for half if they know they aren't going to take the initiative and ask him out (this applies to the first few dates and within the relationship). Why put the guy in the position to always take the initiative, therefore making him culpable for picking up the tab? Either say, "well, I'm only going to let him come after me, so to make up for it, I'll pay half or whole, on occasion" or say, "I'll ask him out and treat him from time to time, so it all evens out." It's an issue of fairness, ladies. Why is it that fairness is one of the only things women DON'T get emotional about?</p>