Who pays on a date?

[kathryn]

So, I'm not currently dating, but I'm reflecting on my past relationships, and I see that money and etiquette has always been something that has confused me a great deal. My parents were wealthy, and money was not something that was talked about in my childhood, and I was scolded if I asked questions about how much money they made or how much things cost. I get a lot of anxiety now trying to discuss anything to do with money, so the idea of talking to prospective date on what his thoughts are on who pays for dinner is stressful. 

 

In the past, I have always either split the price of a date 50/50 or paid for it myself. A guy has never paid outright for dinner. Even on my birthday when a boyfriend tried to pay I felt awkward and insisted on contributing. I realize in the millennial generation with gender roles changing this might be very normal, but a friend of mine recently told me he thought it was emasculating for a woman to pay for dinner. Splitting costs has always seemed fair to me, but seeing as none of my past relationships have worked out very well I thought it might be useful to re-evaluate this notion. 

 

What are your thoughts on who should pay on dates? Is there an assertive way to bring this up with people to talk about? 

 

EDIT: Is it preferable to re-evaluate the entire concept of dating? Because on dates one is not necessarily showing standard behavior. It doesn't seem a very good way to get to know someone. 

[Kevin Beal]

I'm sorry that you were humiliated simply for asking about how money flows in your family. That's messed up.

 

As far as the present day goes, I think it may be worthwhile to simply state your preference and ask him what he thinks, rather than insisting one way or the other.

 

Guy's have different attitudes about this. Some guys care about being the one to pay, others want it to be equal and others are more than happy to get a free meal. (I count myself in the third category).

 

It seems strange to me that a person would base his masculinity or his worth on providing for a meal, enough that not being able to would be emasculating. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but that seems like a distorted sense of priorities, maybe out of insecurity..?

 

In any event, working out a mutually beneficial way that you guys work with money in the relationship is going to be important if you're goal is a long term relationship.

 

Maybe it would be beneficial to seek out therapy (speaking from experience here) in order to become more comfortable negotiating this sort of thing, because one way or another, it's an important thing to negotiate. It's something that can end an otherwise good relationship, if not handled properly.

 

As far as an actual methodology for talking about difficult things in personal relationships, have you read Stef's (free) book Real Time Relationships: The Logic of Love (RTR)?

 

I haven't yet applied this knowledge to romantic relationships, but I've found the tools in this book to be enormously valuable at work and with friends. RTR combines analytic philosophy with psychology with love, and is all about the future. Whereas On Truth is about the past and Universally Preferable Behavior is about the present. I consider all 3 to be required reading, but RTR is most relevant here so I thought I'd ask.

[shirgall]

My thought that the subject is a brief discussion in any potential relationship that gives the participants a lot of insight into one another. If it turns into a repeated discussion, then the other person was probably not honest with their original answer.

[Torero]

Although I am Dutch, I would never go it.

 

I pay, of course. She can pay the second date or surprise me with something else.

 

People (mostly guys) who expect that if they pay they get sex do not understand people. They should go for a prostitute instead.

[kathryn]

I'm sorry that you were humiliated simply for asking about how money flows in your family. That's messed up.

 

As far as the present day goes, I think it may be worthwhile to simply state your preference and ask him what he thinks, rather than insisting one way or the other.

 

Guy's have different attitudes about this. Some guys care about being the one to pay, others want it to be equal and others are more than happy to get a free meal. (I count myself in the third category).

 

It seems strange to me that a person would base his masculinity or his worth on providing for a meal, enough that not being able to would be emasculating. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but that seems like a distorted sense of priorities, maybe out of insecurity..?

 

In any event, working out a mutually beneficial way that you guys work with money in the relationship is going to be important if you're goal is a long term relationship.

 

Maybe it would be beneficial to seek out therapy (speaking from experience here) in order to become more comfortable negotiating this sort of thing, because one way or another, it's an important thing to negotiate. It's something that can end an otherwise good relationship, if not handled properly.

 

As far as an actual methodology for talking about difficult things in personal relationships, have you read Stef's (free) book Real Time Relationships: The Logic of Love (RTR)?

 

I haven't yet applied this knowledge to romantic relationships, but I've found the tools in this book to be enormously valuable at work and with friends. RTR combines analytic philosophy with psychology with love, and is all about the future. Whereas On Truth is about the past and Universally Preferable Behavior is about the present. I consider all 3 to be required reading, but RTR is most relevant here so I thought I'd ask.

 

Yes, I've read read all three and RTR twice. I'm also in Coherence Therapy twice a week. I'm getting a lot better at RTRing with people, but it's still a challenge as I often don't feel sure of my feelings. I frequently have conflicting emotions. I know IFS works a lot with the ambiguity of feelings, and I did my first audio journaling exercise this weekend with some tips I learned in an IFS video. That was really helpful. 

 

I know Stef says questions and curiosity are assertive rather than aggressive, but as asking questions was always punished in my household as a child I still have a reflexive feeling like I'm going to get in trouble. Also, growing up in the south being direct was considered rude and pushy. I can broach awkward subjects with people, but it's almost always anxiety provoking to some degree. 

 

What are your thoughts on a woman having more money or assets than the man she is dating? 

 

My thought that the subject is a brief discussion in any potential relationship that gives the participants a lot of insight into one another. If it turns into a repeated discussion, then the other person was probably not honest with their original answer.

 

I feel skeptical that repeated discussions means someone isn't being honest. Can it mean that more than one feeling is occurring? Or that one's thoughts on the subject have changed? 

[dayna j.]

It seems fair to me that the costs should be split.  I would bring the issue up in advance, propose that the costs be split and see what the reaction is.  The reaction you receive should provide you with useful information that you can use to determine whether you share similar values.  If you were to plan a date with a man and ask in advance whether he is comfortable with spliting the costs, and he finds this idea to be unacceptable, this will provide you with important information with regard to his expectations for your role in the relationship.

[kathryn]

I pay, of course. She can pay the second date or surprise me with something else.

 

So, you're saying that you pay at first, but it should be reciprocated later? Do you feel it should be a relatively even split throughout the courtship? Also, does that mean that you are the one doing the asking? If she asked you, does that mean she pays? 

[Torero]

So, you're saying that you pay at first, but it should be reciprocated later? Do you feel it should be a relatively even split throughout the courtship? Also, does that mean that you are the one doing the asking? If she asked you, does that mean she pays? 

I don't see the world as a pure economic calculation. Of course it would be fair that she pays next time or does something else to "reciprocate" me paying for the first date; a gift, a gesture, a surprise, composes a song, whatever she's good at, not necessarily economic in value.

 

A relatively even split of things I'd consider normal. But that doesn't need to be money.

 

I am pretty classical in that respect and luckily living in Latin America where that's the culture. But even back home in Holland, where feminism is abundant I did this.

 

Splitting the bill would mean a "violation" of my own world view which is that it's not a pure economic calculation. No matter the horrors of the practice itself. Sitting in a romantic restaurant and going over the bill and split it in 30.45 dollars each, brrr, it would give me the creeps.

 

Nothing wrong with me paying the dinner and she pays the drinks afterwards or whatever we do on a date.

 

If she expects that because I pay, that will be the same throughout the relation afterwards, she would be a gold digger which is not the type of person I fall for.

 

It always worked fine this way for me.

 

But if for you and your date something else works fine, that's equally right. It would be immoral and senseless to project my methods and ideas to other couples; I don't have anything to do with them and respect their different behaviour (how couldn't I?).

[Kevin Beal]

Yes, I've read read all three and RTR twice. I'm also in Coherence Therapy twice a week. I'm getting a lot better at RTRing with people, but it's still a challenge as I often don't feel sure of my feelings. I frequently have conflicting emotions. I know IFS works a lot with the ambiguity of feelings, and I did my first audio journaling exercise this weekend with some tips I learned in an IFS video. That was really helpful. 

 

I know Stef says questions and curiosity are assertive rather than aggressive, but as asking questions was always punished in my household as a child I still have a reflexive feeling like I'm going to get in trouble. Also, growing up in the south being direct was considered rude and pushy. I can broach awkward subjects with people, but it's almost always anxiety provoking to some degree. 

 

What are your thoughts on a woman having more money or assets than the man she is dating?

I'm glad that you're having some success in therapy And I can relate to the difficulty in bringing uncomfortable things up with people.

 

What helped me was pushing through the anxiety with people I trusted and talking about those things with them. After consistently observing different results than what I experienced with my own parents, I was able to break the associations I had in my head: about it being wrong for me to assert myself and that it's an unnecessary burden on other people for me to be honest, and that people will resent me for it. It eventually made it easier to do, even with people I didn't trust.

 

I think that once you get somewhat used to asserting yourself with people you trust, and they honor it because they hold you in high regard, despite any flaws or mistakes, it becomes easier to view yourself with the same respect and compassion. A good therapist will help with that. You may already perfectly understand that; I don't know how long you've been going. (I don't mean to offer advice if it's unwanted).

 

As for the question you asked me, I personally wouldn't mind if the woman I was dating made more money than me. I know that it's something other guys feel weird about, though.

 

It would be interesting figuring out what else I'm prepared and willing to contribute to the relationship, as it's something I can offer now without changing anything about myself. But, if I'm really into a woman, I have enough confidence in myself that I know I can provide value in all manner of other ways, or maybe even be inspired enough by the chance to be with her to develop other strengths. Not in an insecure sort of "if only I lose 10 lbs then I'll be worthy of her affections", but rather in the "she makes me want to be a better person" kind of way. And hopefully that's a mutual sort of thing, growing together.

 

I think that part of it is about having a powerful desire on the part of men to provide value, wanting to be your hero. And if they don't know how they can do that, then it can make them feel insecure, like they may not be good enough for you. If it's a problem of insecurity, then I'm not sure there is anything you can do, beside being open and their advocates. But only people themselves can work on their insecurities.

 

Those are my thoughts, anyway. I don't have a whole lot of experience with this, so take it with a grain of salt.

[kathryn]

It seems fair to me that the costs should be split.  I would bring the issue up in advance, propose that the costs be split and see what the reaction is.  The reaction you receive should provide you with useful information that you can use to determine whether you share similar values.  If you were to plan a date with a man and ask in advance whether he is comfortable with spliting the costs, and he finds this idea to be unacceptable, this will provide you with important information with regard to his expectations for your role in the relationship.

 

Would you be open to negotiating that notion with a respective date? If the person's reaction is calm and open to talking about it, but they still have a strong preference on the subject, would you be willing to pay or willing to let them pay depending on their reaction? 

 

I don't see the world as a pure economic calculation. Of course it would be fair that she pays next time or does something else to "reciprocate" me paying for the first date; a gift, a gesture, a surprise, composes a song, whatever she's good at, not necessarily economic in value.

 

A relatively even split of things I'd consider normal. But that doesn't need to be money.

 

I am pretty classical in that respect and luckily living in Latin America where that's the culture. But even back home in Holland, where feminism is abundant I did this.

 

Splitting the bill would mean a "violation" of my own world view which is that it's not a pure economic calculation. No matter the horrors of the practice itself. Sitting in a romantic restaurant and going over the bill and split it in 30.45 dollars each, brrr, it would give me the creeps.

 

Nothing wrong with me paying the dinner and she pays the drinks afterwards or whatever we do on a date.

 

If she expects that because I pay, that will be the same throughout the relation afterwards, she would be a gold digger which is not the type of person I fall for.

 

It always worked fine this way for me.

 

But if for you and your date something else works fine, that's equally right. It would be immoral and senseless to project my methods and ideas to other couples; I don't have anything to do with them and respect their different behaviour (how couldn't I?).

 

I understand. Taking the effort to split the bill at the end of a date is not very romantic. I think generosity is a great virtue, and that is only fostered if both parties are giving and generous with each other.

 

I do wonder, if something didn't feel fair, how one would bring that up. Stef talks about how he frequently checks in with his wife and asks if all her needs are being met. This seems like such a kind gesture, if something were truly wrong, I would find it really hard to disclose when so much kindness was being shown to me like that. Does that make any sense?

 

I guess it all comes down to practice and self-awareness. Right now that seems so foreign to me, but if checking in was standard behavior in a relationship it would feel normal and easy to respond to. And if one is completely aware of their preferences and needs (as Christina surely is), then they will be able to accurately and thoughtfully respond to such an inquiry. 

[kathryn]

I'm glad that you're having some success in therapy And I can relate to the difficulty in bringing uncomfortable things up with people.

 

What helped me was pushing through the anxiety with people I trusted and talking about those things with them. After consistently observing different results than what I experienced with my own parents, I was able to break the associations I had in my head: about it being wrong for me to assert myself and that it's an unnecessary burden on other people for me to be honest, and that people will resent me for it. It eventually made it easier to do, even with people I didn't trust.

 

I think that once you get somewhat used to asserting yourself with people you trust, and they honor it because they hold you in high regard, despite any flaws or mistakes, it becomes easier to view yourself with the same respect and compassion. A good therapist will help with that. You may already perfectly understand that; I don't know how long you've been going. (I don't mean to offer advice if it's unwanted).

 

As for the question you asked me, I personally wouldn't mind if the woman I was dating made more money than me. I know that it's something other guys feel weird about, though.

 

It would be interesting figuring out what else I'm prepared and willing to contribute to the relationship, as it's something I can offer now without changing anything about myself. But, if I'm really into a woman, I have enough confidence in myself that I know I can provide value in all manner of other ways, or maybe even be inspired enough by the chance to be with her to develop other strengths. Not in an insecure sort of "if only I lose 10 lbs then I'll be worthy of her affections", but rather in the "she makes me want to be a better person" kind of way. And hopefully that's a mutual sort of thing, growing together.

 

I think that part of it is about having a powerful desire on the part of men to provide value, wanting to be your hero. And if they don't know how they can do that, then it can make them feel insecure, like they may not be good enough for you. If it's a problem of insecurity, then I'm not sure there is anything you can do, beside being open and their advocates. But only people themselves can work on their insecurities.

 

Those are my thoughts, anyway. I don't have a whole lot of experience with this, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

I appreciate the feedback. Advice was definitely something I was seeking with starting this thread. It's very good to hear that with practice being assertive has gotten much easier for you. Practice with it is something I severely lack. The circle of people that I trust is fairly limited at the moment, but I'm hoping that will grow with time. 

 

I'm curious about what individuals personally contribute to relationships as well. The mutual inspiration that you bring up I think would be one of the most important factors. 

 

How much growth do you think can happen within the confines of a relationship? Like if someone is not financially in a good place, or if they are still dealing with a lot of self-esteem issues, do you think that a person should refrain from dating until those things are sorted out? 

[Mister Mister]

Yes I think the fair thing is to split costs over the long-term.  So if a guy wants to take you out and pay for dinner and a movie, it makes him feel good to do so, and you want to graciously accept, I think that's fine, but then maybe you choose the date and pay next time.  What I think is really unhealthy is when men are continuously paying for the disproportionate majority of everything. 
  Another thought I had is, if you're not sure you like him, it might be better to split the check.  I'm just now realizing that maybe this is the reason guys feel "emasculated" not to pay for everything, but I think that's more our problem to work out, rather than womens' responsibility to placate this anxiety.

[utopian]

What are your thoughts on who should pay on dates? Is there an assertive way to bring this up with people to talk about? 

 

EDIT: Is it preferable to re-evaluate the entire concept of dating? Because on dates one is not necessarily showing standard behavior. It doesn't seem a very good way to get to know someone. 

 

Dating is such a philosophical mess, isint it?

 

As far as paying goes, 50/50 has always made sense to me. Sure, I can pay for a woman. There are plenty of ways I can pay for women. That never satisfies me though, both because I am not so insecure as to feel I need to be paying, and also, if I have to pay for a woman all the time, what does that say about her?

 

Now don't get me wrong, I like doing nice things for women in my life. Little things, here and there. Just to be thoughtful, you know. And I do think the guy should perhaps push past the 50% mark somewhat, just because of the factor of women having more problems from sexual relations, and the man needing to exercise his ability to provide as long as he is choosing to participate in actions that could result in children, whether purposefully or accidentally.

 

The concept of "crossing the line" appears when you consider the ideas of a woman just being out for a man's money, and a man enabling a woman to not make anything of herself. If a woman wanted, she can get pregnant and abuse the system to live off alimony and child support for the rest of her life. Is that any kind of woman a man would want to have a relationship with? Is that even any kind of decent human being? What a waste of life that would be, as well as a poor example for one's children.

 

There is this french woman I am... dating, who I met salsa dancing. She is a software engineer and currently going to a prestigious college. I have not spent a dime on her, besides perhaps some gas to pick her up and go places. She does not want kids. She wants to make something of herself, create a large scale functioning business perhaps. She pursues her goals, while also taking the time to enjoy and live life as completely as she can. And oh, how we live. 

 

I don't know how I could respect her more. We don't love each other, although we enjoy each other's company. We are both fine with that. I am sure I would never have to spend a dime on her if I did not want to. But I do want to, as I have some ideas that she might enjoy. None of it will be extravagant, but I am sure she will enjoy it all the same. 

 

 

 

There is a large concept here as well about your ability to have fun with a person. If you want a serious relationship, you certainly have to be able to deal with the tough parts, but relationships are not just business proposals. You have to be able to enjoy the person's company. Having fun is an important part of a relationship, and while you might not be showing or seeing "standard behavior" it is important to know that the two of you can enjoy yourselves.

 

 

 

Now as far as re evaluating dating when people aren't showing standard behavior, I think the best thing you can do is be very real from the start, assertively bringing up concepts that are important to you and seeing how it reflects off the person. If they become truly engaged, hey, you might have something there. Otherwise, people are just looking to have fun, which there is nothing necessarily wrong with, but if that is the case, you might as well get to the good stuff or look for something else. 

[kathryn]

Yes I think the fair thing is to split costs over the long-term.  So if a guy wants to take you out and pay for dinner and a movie, it makes him feel good to do so, and you want to graciously accept, I think that's fine, but then maybe you choose the date and pay next time.  What I think is really unhealthy is when men are continuously paying for the disproportionate majority of everything. 

  Another thought I had is, if you're not sure you like him, it might be better to split the check.  I'm just now realizing that maybe this is the reason guys feel "emasculated" not to pay for everything, but I think that's more our problem to work out, rather than womens' responsibility to placate this anxiety.

 

I agree that it isn't healthy for one person to continuously pay a disproportionate majority. I've been in a relationship where I exclusively paid for everything, and that didn't feel good. 

 

It's interesting that you say if liking the other person is in question, splitting is the best option. Can you tell me more about that thought? 

[Mister Mister]

I agree that it isn't healthy for one person to continuously pay a disproportionate majority. I've been in a relationship where I exclusively paid for everything, and that didn't feel good. 

 

It's interesting that you say if liking the other person is in question, splitting is the best option. Can you tell me more about that thought? 

Well I just mean that, in a first date situation, if say, the woman has already decided she wouldn't like a second date, but then eagerly allows the man to pay with no objection, that's kind of gross don't you think?  She's basically an escort at that point.  Sorry to frame it in a stereotypically sexist way, that's just what's most common I think, it's interesting to hear that you are kind of the opposite.  Who were these guys that allowed you to pay for everything?  What did you think of them?

[kathryn]

Well I just mean that, in a first date situation, if say, the woman has already decided she wouldn't like a second date, but then eagerly allows the man to pay with no objection, that's kind of gross don't you think?  She's basically an escort at that point.  Sorry to frame it in a stereotypically sexist way, that's just what's most common I think, it's interesting to hear that you are kind of the opposite.  Who were these guys that allowed you to pay for everything?  What did you think of them?

 

Yes, that makes sense. I had the inclination at first to attempt to apply the theory to it's opposite though. If you would like to see someone again that doesn't necessarily mean you should be the one to pay or not. I'm not sure I understand the escort comparison. 

 

In the two cases where I was paying for everything both individuals lost their jobs while I was dating them. One was only in a temporary position, and did not seek further employment after that was over. (He was an artist who wanted to focus on painting.) And the other got laid off and kicked out of her apartment 3 or 4 months after I started dating her. I should mention that my financial situation at the time was atypical as I was essentially a trust fund kid. 

[Marlowe]

My girlfriend always insists on paying for herself, or when she can't, always pays me back. Has been like this since the first date. I would have insisted on this if she did not. 

[MagnumPI]

I usually just leave the money on the counter on the way out.

[hannahbanana]

I think it doesn't really matter who pays or if it's split or whatever, as long as it's negotiated. If it feels like you are being expected or forced to pay, there's a problem.

[Frosty]

My personal view is that whoever does the asking for the date should pay, so if I offer to take someone to dinner then I cover the costs of the whole thing, if they insist on paying half because they feel bad then I'm happy for them to contribute.

 

The main problem is that the tradition of men paying which everyone understood and agreed with for the longest time has been ruined by modern feminism where equality is such a hot topic and now no one knows what is best, there is no etiquette anymore that will suit everyone, it just requires discussion of it.

[kathryn]

My girlfriend always insists on paying for herself, or when she can't, always pays me back. Has been like this since the first date. I would have insisted on this if she did not. 

 

Why is it so important to you that you both insist? 

 

I have done this with my last two relationships. We keep a spreadsheet "tab" to account for who has paid what and who owes what. It's worked out great!

 

Was that ever stressful? Keeping a spreadsheet doesn't sound very romantic, but I am curious how that worked. Was the split in this spreadsheet 50/50, or was it more specific to what you ordered? Like, if you got a salad and he got steak, did you just pay for what you ate or was the entire bill divided in half? Also, were there any concessions in the spreadsheet that made the contribution proportionate to income? Like, if the guy made a lot more money than you or vice versa, was the expectation that you would still pay the same amount? 

 

I think it doesn't really matter who pays or if it's split or whatever, as long as it's negotiated. If it feels like you are being expected or forced to pay, there's a problem.

 

Should the negotiation happen before a date, or when the bill arrives at the end of a date? 

 

My personal view is that whoever does the asking for the date should pay, so if I offer to take someone to dinner then I cover the costs of the whole thing, if they insist on paying half because they feel bad then I'm happy for them to contribute.

 

The main problem is that the tradition of men paying which everyone understood and agreed with for the longest time has been ruined by modern feminism where equality is such a hot topic and now no one knows what is best, there is no etiquette anymore that will suit everyone, it just requires discussion of it.

 

That makes sense to me. Are you comfortable with a woman asking a man out on a date? Or does that seem strange to you?

 

Thanks for bringing up feminism. I've heard a lot of feminists say that they are not man haters they just want equality with men, but Stef rightly points out that men and women are different. I wonder if the tendency for perfect fairness in bill splitting is a direct result of feminism. Something doesn't seem fair about men being expected to pay all the time, but part of the reason that isn't fair is because men in this day and age have a difficult time finding work that pays well, partially due to the economic fallout of the feminist movement. I'm not sure exactly what that means in terms of how couples split finances, but it is interesting. 

[Frosty]

That makes sense to me. Are you comfortable with a woman asking a man out on a date? Or does that seem strange to you?

 

Thanks for bringing up feminism. I've heard a lot of feminists say that they are not man haters they just want equality with men, but Stef rightly points out that men and women are different. I wonder if the tendency for perfect fairness in bill splitting is a direct result of feminism. Something doesn't seem fair about men being expected to pay all the time, but part of the reason that isn't fair is because men in this day and age have a difficult time finding work that pays well, partially due to the economic fallout of the feminist movement. I'm not sure exactly what that means in terms of how couples split finances, but it is interesting. 

 

It's strange in the sense that it doesn't really happen very often, the stats on that are about 95% of the time it's men asking women, that's just to do with the asymmetric nature of sexual market value, generally speaking young and healthy women have a lot of it where as men struggle to get it, this creates the imbalance where women tend to have many suitors from which they can pick, women in general can afford not to ask men out and they'll be OK. It's not strange in the sense that it would bother me, that would be quite flattering really.

 

Feminists rant that they don't need men to pay for everything, so we have a class of women who are fairly principled about splitting the bill, but then we have the women who feel it should remain a traditional thing that men do it and they can expect that and get away with it because again men don't have a huge amount of choice. I don't think dates are expensive enough for it to really bother me either way, what I think is a bigger problem is the tension and awkwardness that comes with not having a broadly accepted etiquette and needing to discuss it, I think people worry about making good first impressions on dates and worry that discussing it mostly just invites making yourself look bad. Feminist leaning people may find it offensive if you insist to pay the whole thing as if they're not capable, if you go the other way and discuss splitting it the traditional women are going to frown upon this, and if you discuss it openly you risk 50/50 chance of ending up in one of those camps.

 

In some ways things were easier the traditional way, most people knew what to expect and so there's less anxiety and worry.

[Mister Mister]

Yes, that makes sense. I had the inclination at first to attempt to apply the theory to it's opposite though. If you would like to see someone again that doesn't necessarily mean you should be the one to pay or not. I'm not sure I understand the escort comparison.

I just mean that if let him pay when you don't really like the guy, you are essentially being paid just to be someone's date, i.e. an escort.

[Frosty]

The relationship previous to that, there had been some stress because neither of us was doing a great job with our finances and would sometimes end up being broke at the same time. And in those cases, every dollar counted. Some resentment was starting to creep in because he would tend to pick things up for me while he was out, and I didn't always have cash on hand to pay him back right away. I suggested the spreadsheet, and it was a great weight off both of us. We kept it in a shared google drive folder. And also had our bank accounts set up so we could transfer money directly into the other's account.

 

This sounds a lot like me and my brother actually, we'd go out for beers down the pub after work regularly and be always buying each other rounds and whatnot and managing it was a pain because it's easy to forget who owes who how much, in the end he wrote a little android mobile app which just held a difference between us and then whoever was in debt to the other would just buy the next round.

 

One of the best things we ever did, just tap in who paid and how much, you don't need spreadsheets and stuff like that because we're not interested in how much we spent or on what, we were simply interested in make sure we were both paying fairly, we weren't bothered about there being say a £30 difference at any one time, just that it always tended towards being fair.

 

I could see that working well in relationships to be honest, if you're trying to maintain financial fairness, he never actually published the app though just left it as a development version.

[kathryn]

I just mean that if let him pay when you don't really like the guy, you are essentially being paid just to be someone's date, i.e. an escort.

I think an argument could be made that it is polite and considerate to split a bill if you know you don't want to see the person again, so that there is no resentment about wasted resources, but I'm not sure if I agree with your comparison to an escort. For one, the idea of a couple of drinks or a dinner being a "payment" seems inaccurate. If that was the sole reason for going on the date, to get a free meal, then that person is already manipulative and would not be interested in being polite or considerate, and I think the escort comparison could apply in a situation like that.

 

However, I think the majority of people go on dates to get to know someone better, not for some monetary value. It seems strange that there would be any sort of arbitrary obligation to someone you don't like. There could still be a negotiation and discussion on who pays even when you don't like a person, but having to pay a certain amount to this person you didn't enjoy the company of, or you will be labeled as a prostitute?

 

I'm still thinking about the reverse situation, where you really like a person, and how that fits in with the escort comparison. I suppose in the scenario where you want to see your date again, one person can pay now the other can reciprocate later, so everything remains equitable. It seems like the value for you is equality and fairness, and if you know you're not going to see a person again, then there is no opportunity for reciprocation at a later time, so splitting things in the moment would be preferable to you.

 

What are your thoughts on this? I'm really curious as to why financial equality in relationships and splitting the bill on dates is something that so many of us value.

[jgib]

I am a far bit older than many of you here so may be offering an opinion from a different generation. I am also new back into this whole "dating" thing. I have no problem paying any portion when I meet with someone. I do find that often men in my age group want to pay, especially on the first meeting, and sometimes they are even offended if the woman offers to pay. I try to be sensitive to the comfort level of who I am with and follow their lead, especially early on.

I personally am most comfortable with ' you pay one time, I pay the next'. I believe it all works out in the end to be pretty even as long as no party is feeling taken advantage of. If there are those feelings maybe it is worth looking at the bigger picture as I think there would be a another issue developing.

[Troubador]

I've personally lost count of whose paid for what in most of my dating endeavours, if I'm nearing the end of a nice meal that has gone well if we're not engrossed in a stimulating conversation by that point I've done something wrong. At that stage the cheque appearing should be but the most cursorary of pauses usually tackled with something along the lines "I've really enjoyed this evening, so how shall we handle this? How about I get this, you can get the next one, or even vice versa?" I think it's important it's phrased as a question, and your talking about it in context of a "we", because what is a date but an opportunity to see how you both are together? It's a good time to have flexibility.

 

On occasions where it hasn't gone overly well my brain is usually mulling over other areas the date hasn't gone particularly well, and I'm struggling to recall personally a time where the bill coming was specifically fraught. As a side note, and I'm not sure why but I have a pathological fear of being stuck in a restaurant and not being able to pay, so I'm not comfortable unless I know I can reach into my pocket and cover the whole bill if need be! Dates never seem to be a time where this ever becomes a stress, it's usually only an issue when if I'm out with large numbers of friends, we're eating somewhere fancy and I'm wondering for some bizarre reason "holy crap can I foot this if I need to?" although luckily I've never been out for a meal and all my friends have spontaneously combusted, been taken by the rapture or someother equally unlikely event.

[hannahbanana]

 

Should the negotiation happen before a date, or when the bill arrives at the end of a date? 

 

Hmm, I haven't really thought of it. I guess before hand, because if you're put on the spot sometimes you can feel rushed to give in when you don't really want to.

[Eternal Growth]

If a guy assumes he should pay the entire bill it lessens the respect I have for him as a potential partner and for the way in which he is approaching a relationship.

 

Men and women are different, but must be equals within a healthy relationship. Unidirectional transfer of money makes sense if a woman is taking care of children while her partner is working on his career, or if she does more work in the house: it does not make sense early in a relationship unless the guy doesn’t respect the competence and independence of the woman, or his own value as a man and human being, or is just trying to buy his way into access to sex. When pregnancy and childcare are excluded from the equation, women are as equally capable of earning money as men (and actually are actually considerably more likely to have higher education qualifications in the current younger generations), and are no more entitled to free meals from a relative stranger. 

 

On the first few dates, expect the other person to pay for their share of the bill, and expect no less of yourself to do the same. This will filter out low-quality dates, while high-quality dates will not mind in the slightest pulling their own weight (and will respect that they expected to do such). Feminist vs. traditional is a false dichotomy - go with philosophical and mutually respecting. Go with UPB.

 

It's strange in the sense that it doesn't really happen very often, the stats on that are about 95% of the time it's men asking women, that's just to do with the asymmetric nature of sexual market value, generally speaking young and healthy women have a lot of it where as men struggle to get it, this creates the imbalance where women tend to have many suitors from which they can pick, women in general can afford not to ask men out and they'll be OK. It's not strange in the sense that it would bother me, that would be quite flattering really.

 

You seem to jump from talking about "young and healthy women" to making a conclusion about "women" in general. If most men choose to focus on only a minority of the female population, this says nothing about women as a whole - there are all of the women on whom men are choosing not to focus. Society is actually an approximately 50:50 split between men and women; leaning towards there being more women. It's the same as switching from talking about "millionaire, charming, tall and handsome men" to making a conclusion about "men" in general.

[kathryn]

I am a far bit older than many of you here so may be offering an opinion from a different generation. I am also new back into this whole "dating" thing. I have no problem paying any portion when I meet with someone. I do find that often men in my age group want to pay, especially on the first meeting, and sometimes they are even offended if the woman offers to pay. I try to be sensitive to the comfort level of who I am with and follow their lead, especially early on.

I personally am most comfortable with ' you pay one time, I pay the next'. I believe it all works out in the end to be pretty even as long as no party is feeling taken advantage of. If there are those feelings maybe it is worth looking at the bigger picture as I think there would be a another issue developing.

 

Thanks for sharing your experience. Do you have any theories as to why they feel offended by the woman paying?

 

I've personally lost count of whose paid for what in most of my dating endeavours, if I'm nearing the end of a nice meal that has gone well if we're not engrossed in a stimulating conversation by that point I've done something wrong. At that stage the cheque appearing should be but the most cursorary of pauses usually tackled with something along the lines "I've really enjoyed this evening, so how shall we handle this? How about I get this, you can get the next one, or even vice versa?" I think it's important it's phrased as a question, and your talking about it in context of a "we", because what is a date but an opportunity to see how you both are together? It's a good time to have flexibility.

 

On occasions where it hasn't gone overly well my brain is usually mulling over other areas the date hasn't gone particularly well, and I'm struggling to recall personally a time where the bill coming was specifically fraught. As a side note, and I'm not sure why but I have a pathological fear of being stuck in a restaurant and not being able to pay, so I'm not comfortable unless I know I can reach into my pocket and cover the whole bill if need be! Dates never seem to be a time where this ever becomes a stress, it's usually only an issue when if I'm out with large numbers of friends, we're eating somewhere fancy and I'm wondering for some bizarre reason "holy crap can I foot this if I need to?" although luckily I've never been out for a meal and all my friends have spontaneously combusted, been taken by the rapture or someother equally unlikely event.

 

That's interesting. I wonder why you feel that insecurity around the bill with groups of people... Has that happened before to someone you know? Is abandonment one of you ACE scores? 

[KevinLonkero]

When a woman refuses to have a first date paid for it seems to communicate that she wants plausible deniability to be able to insist that the interaction was not in fact a date, or romantic in nature, in the event of non-attraction. It's generally a good sign for a man if a woman accepts his offer for payment of the date since this at least indicates that she is willing to acknowledge the interaction as a "real" date, and as a bonus she isn't too militantly feminist.

 

While none of this is economically ideal, it's generally the impression I get within the context of the society I am in. Women can avoid communicating disinterest while offering to split the bill simply by being congenial while declining the offer for the man to pay, or suggesting splitting the bill in a friendly, lighthearted manner. When women are too aggressive in insisting that the man not pay one cent of her portion of a bill, that's when it comes off as rude or a sign of disinterest. 

[A4E]

Whoever insisted on eating out. Because why should a date automatically include eating out? Can we not date any way we want? And there are many ways to date without spending money. Or are we so mentally confined and controled that we have to date the way the wind blows? I think I remember someone talking about freedom on this board...

 

If a date will involve spending money, aka resources, aka work, then if the insisting/asking part do not mention any terms beforehand, then that part should be expected to pay.

 

If a lady asks me if I want to join her to eat in a (very expensive) restaurant, and I say ok. Then I expect her to pay.

 

If a lady asks me if I want to join her to eat in a (very expensive) restaurant and also say that she will not pay for me, and I say ok. Then I expect to pay for myself.

 

Lets say I ask a lady if she wants to eat out, and she says ok. And then I tell her that she will have to pay for herself. If she now says no, then I could ask if she wants to go on a date without spending money, and if she says no because she got upset or whatever, then I just saved alot of time (and money) not spending time with a woman who clearly value money/resources/free stuff more than potentially finding a soulmate.

 

 

note: This is my opinion if we want a society where men are not expected to be the main providers in a family.

[Troubador]

Thanks for sharing your experience. Do you have any theories as to why they feel offended by the woman paying?

 

 

 

That's interesting. I wonder why you feel that insecurity around the bill with groups of people... Has that happened before to someone you know? Is abandonment one of you ACE scores?

 

Sorry what is an ACE score? I'm not sure it's abandonment it's more like obligation, if I miscalculate the money in my wallet and I don't have enough money to buy a book in a bookstore for example there is a momentary flash of embarrassment, but I can easily pick it up another day. If I'm ever participating in a transaction where I have consumed or availed myself of the service already like say with a meal, if I don't have the money I'm now the bad guy. I suppose when I am part of a group I'm somewhat responsible for the actions of the whole group (not entirely that would be batty), but a group I choose to associate with projects itself as a whole and I'm part of that projection iyswim, so if I went out with ten people and it turned out all nine people forgot their wallets except for me I'd want to know I could cover mine and their meals just pay and get out the door, without projecting that a group I was a member of was comprised of so many people that couldn't get their collective crap together enough to organise going out for a simple meal together. Thus far my choice of dinner companions has never seen me in this position, and I'm not opposed to spotting someone dinner who just honestly made a mistake, I guess it's just a weird foible of mine that I like to know "worst case scenario I can cover it."

[Shea Roberts]

Most of the time when my girlfriend and I go out, we both pay our fair share. Sometimes one of us might be short or give a bit more than usual due to what denominations we have in our pockets. The only time I'd say it's appropriate for one person to pay exclusively for the other is if it is a pre-planned intentional thing. Like a gift you're giving that other person.

 

Also, I've found much more enjoyment cooking for her as opposed to going out. Reasons being are it's cheaper, it's more intimate and I just enjoy cooking and getting better at that. But no one should be "obligated" to pay for the other based on gender. It comes down to the two people in the relationship.

[kathryn]

Sorry what is an ACE score? I'm not sure it's abandonment it's more like obligation, if I miscalculate the money in my wallet and I don't have enough money to buy a book in a bookstore for example there is a momentary flash of embarrassment, but I can easily pick it up another day. If I'm ever participating in a transaction where I have consumed or availed myself of the service already like say with a meal, if I don't have the money I'm now the bad guy. I suppose when I am part of a group I'm somewhat responsible for the actions of the whole group (not entirely that would be batty), but a group I choose to associate with projects itself as a whole and I'm part of that projection iyswim, so if I went out with ten people and it turned out all nine people forgot their wallets except for me I'd want to know I could cover mine and their meals just pay and get out the door, without projecting that a group I was a member of was comprised of so many people that couldn't get their collective crap together enough to organise going out for a simple meal together. Thus far my choice of dinner companions has never seen me in this position, and I'm not opposed to spotting someone dinner who just honestly made a mistake, I guess it's just a weird foible of mine that I like to know "worst case scenario I can cover it."

 

I was referring to the Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) study, which examines the effects of adverse childhood experiences, like abuse or neglect, on health later in life. Stef talks about it a lot in the Bomb in the Brain series. Knowing and understanding my score has helped me figure out a lot patterns in my reflexive emotional responses. Here's a good link where you can take the test and learn more about it if you are interested. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/03/02/387007941/take-the-ace-quiz-and-learn-what-it-does-and-doesnt-mean