It's been a while since I've done a relationship post, but I was talking to one of my boys the other day when he posed this question, "how many dates should you take a girl out on before she pays?" I couldn't think of a better topic to reengage with...!
We are in 2010, and women have fought for and reclaimed equality in many areas of life, from the workplace, to education, to the bedroom. Women are taking charge and have established equal footing (as it should be) with men across various aspects of life and in the dynamics of male/female relationships. However, there are still certain realms that remain conspicuously untouched -- one of these is dating, and specifically, the issue of who pays when and for what. The question here is, why does the push for equality end when it comes to who picks up the check at the end of a date?
They say that art imitates life, so let's have a quick listening session to examine the perspectives from both sides of the dating dinner table (you may click each link for a quick listen if you like):
Ladies:
We are in 2010, and women have fought for and reclaimed equality in many areas of life, from the workplace, to education, to the bedroom. Women are taking charge and have established equal footing (as it should be) with men across various aspects of life and in the dynamics of male/female relationships. However, there are still certain realms that remain conspicuously untouched -- one of these is dating, and specifically, the issue of who pays when and for what. The question here is, why does the push for equality end when it comes to who picks up the check at the end of a date?
They say that art imitates life, so let's have a quick listening session to examine the perspectives from both sides of the dating dinner table (you may click each link for a quick listen if you like):
Ladies:
-Exhibit A: Destiny's Child - Bills, Bills, Bills
Lyrical Excerpt: Can you pay my bills/ Can you pay my telephone bills/ Can you pay my automo'bills/ Then maybe we can chill/ I don't think you do/ so you and me are through...
-Exhibit B: Destiny's Child - Independent Women
Lyrical Excerpt: Tell me how you feel about this/ Try to control me boy you get dismissed/ Pay my own fun, oh and I pay my own bills/ Always 50/50 in relationships...
Gentlemen:
-Exhibit C: Ne-Yo - She Got Her Own
Lyrical Excerpt: I love her cause she got her own/ She don't need mine, so she leave mine alone/ There ain't nothing that's more sexy/ Than a girl that want but don't need me.../ I love it when she say/ It's cool I got it, I got it, I got it...
-Exhibit D: Ne-Yo - Miss Independent
Lyrical Excerpt: Ooh there's somethin about/ Kinda woman that can do for herself.../ There's somethin about her/ There's somethin oh so sexy about/ Kinda woman that don't even need my help/ She said she got it she got it no doubt/ There's something about her...
Looking over at the ladies side of the table, men either see confusion or a split between "traditional," versus more modern values. The former advocates that men should pay for dates (among other things) as they are "taking the woman out." The latter would argue that women are just as capable of paying, and it is in fact an assertion of their independence to exercise this right. The men's side trumpets in unison that men would LOVE for women to pay for dates. Men would tell you that they are even turned on by just the offer from a woman to pick up and/or split the bill -- better still if she executes. Nevertheless, some men are also traditional, and are comfortable or even prefer to pay for dates. But, should the man have to or be expected to pay every single time? (Though there is argument to be made about who made the plans -- i.e. if the man plans, he pays.)
I currently live in NYC, so let's do the local dating math for the typical dinner/movie date:
Looking over at the ladies side of the table, men either see confusion or a split between "traditional," versus more modern values. The former advocates that men should pay for dates (among other things) as they are "taking the woman out." The latter would argue that women are just as capable of paying, and it is in fact an assertion of their independence to exercise this right. The men's side trumpets in unison that men would LOVE for women to pay for dates. Men would tell you that they are even turned on by just the offer from a woman to pick up and/or split the bill -- better still if she executes. Nevertheless, some men are also traditional, and are comfortable or even prefer to pay for dates. But, should the man have to or be expected to pay every single time? (Though there is argument to be made about who made the plans -- i.e. if the man plans, he pays.)
I currently live in NYC, so let's do the local dating math for the typical dinner/movie date:
-Dinner + drinks for two at a mid-range restaurant = $50-$80
-Movie for two (excluding snacks) = $26 (regular), $29 (3D), or $38 (IMAX)
-Total: Low end = $76-$79; High end = $118
I don't know about you, but to me, that's expensive. Many men (especially in the current economy) operate with this rubric in the back of their minds: After 3-5 dates, the girl should start picking up some of the tab. Example: if a man takes a woman to dinner and spends around $100 and then they go to a movie, he would appreciate the woman paying for the movie. Ultimately, men are advocating for balance.
Most men don't want to be looked at as a source of free drinks, meals, and other entertainment when they date. From the male perspective, men put out/sacrifice a lot when it comes to dating at the risk of receiving little to nothing in return. There are no guarantees in dating, and I have friends (quality guys btw) with $200 date stories that never led to date #2. The ball truly is in the woman's court as she is essentially auditioning the man/men she is seeing. This is not to say the man completely lacks control, but if things don't work out after 3-5 dates, then he is out every dime that he spent getting to know/demonstrating interest/and even trying to impress woman X. Women get 3-5 outings for the price of their time (also valuable, I know).
After the 5th date, I think it's fairly safe to say that the relationship is starting to go somewhere and that both parties are developing a connection deeper than the initial attraction that brought them to the dinner table in the first place. Given that commitment levels, interest, and feelings are growing on both sides, is it fair for the man to continue to operate at the same level of financial output that it took to even get to date 5? Should a modern, independent woman sit back and watch a man open his wallet each time they go out if she has the means to foot half or even the entire bill?
In this scenario, one might ask, "does the man's job and by extension his income matter?" For example if a lawyer man is dating a social worker woman, should he be 100% expected to pay for everything? What happens if we flip the roles/salaries and the woman makes significantly more than the man, should she still expect him to pay for most dates, even though it might be breaking his bank? Should who pays be date specific -- the more expensive dates picked up by the man, and the lesser by the woman? Should splitting the bill become the new modus operandi in the 3-5 date range?
I realize that there is a definite slant toward the male perspective in this post. In A-i-T's/men's defense, let's look at how society has traditionally structured things: The man is expected to court a woman and generally pay for most if not all outings. In the long-run he is also expected to save around 3 months worth of salary to buy the engagement ring. Finally, in marriage, he is expected to be the main provider (mortgage, tuition, bills, etc.). What my friend and many men are saying is this: Given the immense financial burden of expectation traditionally, and still placed on men in the dating/relationship game, can we not catch a break and at least have the woman pay for that $50 meal or that $26 movie? In the end, if she doesn't pay, she could at least offer, and give the man right of refusal - is that so much to ask?
I'll end with this -- NBA almost great, Grant Hill, tested his wife-to-be by pretending to forget his wallet at home on a date to see if her reaction would be, "don't worry, I got it," or "what the ___!" They have now been married 11 years. Most guys are not making pro-athlete money, but all men appreciate a woman who will at least meet them half way...
Fellow Adults-in-Training, what's your perspective on who should pay and when? Is there a date number threshold at which things should change? Do you have any feelings about the questions relating to income and/or modern versus traditional gender roles?
Peace,
I don't know about you, but to me, that's expensive. Many men (especially in the current economy) operate with this rubric in the back of their minds: After 3-5 dates, the girl should start picking up some of the tab. Example: if a man takes a woman to dinner and spends around $100 and then they go to a movie, he would appreciate the woman paying for the movie. Ultimately, men are advocating for balance.
Most men don't want to be looked at as a source of free drinks, meals, and other entertainment when they date. From the male perspective, men put out/sacrifice a lot when it comes to dating at the risk of receiving little to nothing in return. There are no guarantees in dating, and I have friends (quality guys btw) with $200 date stories that never led to date #2. The ball truly is in the woman's court as she is essentially auditioning the man/men she is seeing. This is not to say the man completely lacks control, but if things don't work out after 3-5 dates, then he is out every dime that he spent getting to know/demonstrating interest/and even trying to impress woman X. Women get 3-5 outings for the price of their time (also valuable, I know).
After the 5th date, I think it's fairly safe to say that the relationship is starting to go somewhere and that both parties are developing a connection deeper than the initial attraction that brought them to the dinner table in the first place. Given that commitment levels, interest, and feelings are growing on both sides, is it fair for the man to continue to operate at the same level of financial output that it took to even get to date 5? Should a modern, independent woman sit back and watch a man open his wallet each time they go out if she has the means to foot half or even the entire bill?
In this scenario, one might ask, "does the man's job and by extension his income matter?" For example if a lawyer man is dating a social worker woman, should he be 100% expected to pay for everything? What happens if we flip the roles/salaries and the woman makes significantly more than the man, should she still expect him to pay for most dates, even though it might be breaking his bank? Should who pays be date specific -- the more expensive dates picked up by the man, and the lesser by the woman? Should splitting the bill become the new modus operandi in the 3-5 date range?
I realize that there is a definite slant toward the male perspective in this post. In A-i-T's/men's defense, let's look at how society has traditionally structured things: The man is expected to court a woman and generally pay for most if not all outings. In the long-run he is also expected to save around 3 months worth of salary to buy the engagement ring. Finally, in marriage, he is expected to be the main provider (mortgage, tuition, bills, etc.). What my friend and many men are saying is this: Given the immense financial burden of expectation traditionally, and still placed on men in the dating/relationship game, can we not catch a break and at least have the woman pay for that $50 meal or that $26 movie? In the end, if she doesn't pay, she could at least offer, and give the man right of refusal - is that so much to ask?
I'll end with this -- NBA almost great, Grant Hill, tested his wife-to-be by pretending to forget his wallet at home on a date to see if her reaction would be, "don't worry, I got it," or "what the ___!" They have now been married 11 years. Most guys are not making pro-athlete money, but all men appreciate a woman who will at least meet them half way...
Fellow Adults-in-Training, what's your perspective on who should pay and when? Is there a date number threshold at which things should change? Do you have any feelings about the questions relating to income and/or modern versus traditional gender roles?
Peace,
A-i-T
Posts
13 comments:
You should follow up this post with one on engagement rings! What a scam!
Seriously though, women want to be treated as equals and not a piece of meat, they should pick up the slack and offer to pay. Or alternate at least.
But too many think that's not "romantic". Those are the same ones you can tell and mean "I love you" 364 days out of the year, but if you miss one February 14th you're screwed!
- Phil C., the most charming man on the planet
I enjoyed the read. I think after date two, a modern woman should start paying (or at least offering to pay) it shows that she has interest too and isn't just using the guy. I think on the first date, the man should always pay however, but the woman can at least offer to pay half if the price seems a little steep.
I'll start off by saying this: a man should pick a date venue that is within his fiscal limits. when I was more broke, I frequented the $5, unlimited play, pool halls. When I became less broke, I graduated to the $12/game, with table service billiard lounges. The point is (1) invest what you can comfortably afford to lose; and (2) don't take her somePLACE just to impress her; do things that allow YOU to impress her.
With all of that said, I think women should at least (genuinely and sincerely) offer to pay during dates 3-5. I also think men should be prepared to pay for everything during dates 3-5. I think a good compromise on traditional and modern times is to at least give men the opportunity to chose to pay for all or part; in other words, give men the opportunity to get a sense of how his date feels about the whole traditional vs. modern dating thing. Eg. If a woman comes across as very traditional (expects man to open every door all evening long, remove coat, pull out chair, order food for her, etc.) then when she offers to pay, he should presume that her expectation will likely be that he pays, despite her genuine and sincere offer. Conversely, if woman seems to be more modern (eg. Woman buys a round of beers before dinner, woman bought movie tickets online before the date, etc.) then when she offers to pay, man can presume that she has no preconceived expectation as to who will pay.
Also, a woman's offer to pay gives opportuity for communication. Lets say man and moman are spontaneous during date 4 and they decide to go to a bar to hear their mutually favorite band/artisit. When they get to the bar, they learn of the $30 cover and 2 drink min. that is potentially $100 more than man planned to spend. Woman's offer to pay for something during the performance may open a dialogue about the logisitics that allows both man and woman to feel comfortable and they both enjoy themselves. I know that I wouldn’t be able to enjoy my favorite music as much if I'm thinking about the $100 over spent at the bar the rest of the night.
But, once man and woman define their relationship, then they should invest in it equally. There is no way to put a number on that.
I have been on both sides, and ultimately came to the conclusion that I did not have to pay for everything. Being in a relationship now that is 100% 50/50 - one of the many things I love about her - made me realize I was not off-base in wanting 50/50.
One time, back in the single, dating days, I paid for movie tickets and then suggested my date buy the popcorn and soda. A couple days later she made an issue out of it and I calmly told her that this is what I do. Too many times in the past had I shelled out, only to not even be met with a thank you or a call back. And no longer was I to oblige. Whether for this, or the host of other issues I had with this date, I ended the relationship about two weeks later.
It is a hard line to toe, and an even harder one to cross, but I think men are warranted in expecting the woman to at least pay her share. We, the men, should force ourselves to think in a similar manner as women when it comes to dating. If she cannot even offer to split the bill, then is that a foreshadowing of things to come? I cap paying for it all at one date. We should be more than capable of telling whether or not a relationship is desired, let alone possible, during that first date. If after the first date, she is interested, it should be on her to call. By all means call yourself, but do not pester if reciprocation is not received.
I had the fortunate experience of having a "reversed" household - Mom did the traveling, Dad stayed home. They both worked, of course, but mom's job entailed monthly trips to South America. Mom knew finance. Mom made more money. I have no problems allowed women to pay, should they ask, and they should. Life and relationships are about give and take, and for those of us men who seek an well-educated, career woman, the level of give and take SHOULD be equal.
Wow, some really great points! I really appreciate the feedback/opinions!
@Phil C.: great idea for a follow up, though I imagine that it may start a revolution! De Beers & Zales may also try to silence me.
@Jessica: A very reasoned approach, one that men hope more women shared.
@AvenueJay: Sticking within one's budget is great advice, as is letting the man, not the venue impress the girl. I really liked your scenarios and even how this paying issue can lead to communication, I never even thought of that. A great way for a couple to figure things out. Which leads i to some of the comments made by
@Chino: sounds like you've had some interesting history with this issue. But it really is an early indicator of how finances will be treated in a relationship. You are right about men needing to change their mindset and push for a 50/50 relationship. Ideally, things SHOULD be equal...but it may take us a while to get there...
I find it interesting that you stuck strictly to 'who pays' in a literal financial sense in this post. I only mention this because I think I can speak for a fair number of women who know there might be some hope/expection by the men they're dating for some type of physical exchange at the end of the date/night and with the men who hope/wish that in return for the nice evening which they have shelled out for, some type of physical exchange. So men may pay and women then may feel like they 'pay' back in a different way
Anything after 2 dates is considered a relationship. At that point it's time for the woman to start a relationship with the tab as well.
I haven't been in that many relationships, but everything seems to be dependent on my mood and feeling about the particular person I am dating which determines whether the thought even crosses mind to pay or pffer to pay. I have planned dates where I pay for the things that need to be taken care of beforehand and the guy ended up paying for the immediate things such as dinneronly because he would not let me pay ( which I don't mind). I don't mind paying. If I'm planning the date, I like to take care of the bill.
@Anonymous(Aug. 19) - I stuck to "who pays" in the strictly financial sense so as not to muddy the waters with the "physical exchange" element, which was not part of the original question posed by my friend. It is also not an expectation held by all men. I personally do not believe in nor advocate that because a man pays in cash, the woman should return in kind, and I did not wish to broach the subject in this post. You do bring up a valid point, and perhaps I can address it in another post, or I welcome you to write a guest post for my blog if you are so inclined.
@Kojo: only 2 dates till you define the relationship? You move quick bro!
@Zitaberry: I like that you assert that your paying is a choice and can be situation or feeling specific. I'm sure some guys inspire that move, whereas others hardly move you to lift a finger. It also makes sense that the person who plans, also pays...
whew...I am old fashioned - you ask...you pay...and I don't pay back in the end...unless I am really feeling you. But to be fair been out of the dating scene for about a decade...
But I am all about being a princess...even with my hubby. I am honest when I say I look not only for a man that could provide but that wants to provide for his family eventually! That doesn't mean I'm not going to do anything but I find a man's man--provider--king of his domain-type of dude extremely attractive. If you are looking for me to pay...RED FLAGS are all over that situation!
great post, Nii!
Here's what I think is most necessary - communication. I live in Nigeria. Many men here feel emasculated when you pay, like you're undermining their abilities, or stuff like that. This is not to say that there aren't men who appreciate when you offer to pick up the tab...
Communication is important because you have to be able to let a woman know it's OK if she wants to pick up the tab; and understand that her offering to pay doesn't have anything to do with your manliness - she's taking up the equal role that you say she now has. Two, if she just goes ahead to pick it up, let her know if you think it's not cool, and try to understand why she thinks she has to/should pay.
I hate owing people stuff, and if a guy I don't know or I just met pays for my dinner, I'd feel like I owe him something, and since I ain't gonna get busy with him, I'd rather pay for my own meal.
Thank you so much for this post. I found it randomly by searching for answers to other dating questions, but this has answered other questions I'd been wondering about too. Even the comments were helpful.
Are you saying woman are hookers?
Post a Comment