3 Reasons Why Guys Should Still be Paying for Dates

[Michelle ma Belle]

I consider myself to be a feminist who absolutely adores men, who supports the men's movement as much as my own and who isn't afraid to admit that I tend to lean towards more traditional values when it comes to family and relationships.

 

When it comes to dating, I have never been afraid to pull out my credit card and pay. Having said that, I think the first date should be paid by the person who initiates the date. After that, taking turns seems to be the more logical and fairest way to deal with dating especially if money is an issue for either person.

 

Regardless, I came across this article and wondered what your thoughts are on the subject;

 

3 Reasons Why Guys Should Still Be Paying For Dates -

 

And P.S., don't shoot the messenger

[mightycpa]

Bah.

 

1) Men have primping costs too.

2) In general, men do make more, but the general case does not apply to the specific. If a guy is smart, he'll be dating women that make good money.

3) Multi-dating guys should be dating even more than multi-dating women.

 

so, M2B, IMHO that article is for loser girls who need "rules" to navigate society.

 

For me, even taking turns is a little too formal.. because that would almost inevitably lead to a discussion of "even". For me, if the woman took me out every once in a while, I always thought that was very thoughtful of her. A nice change of pace. A treat.

 

If a guy is having money troubles, he probably needs to spend less time dating, and more time taking care of his money troubles. I always thought that about women too. Take care of your problems before you foist them on other people.

[RonaldS]

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with #2 (with the adendum that I do believe that income inequality is real).

 

For example, when I've dated, every woman I went out with was educated (many Masters and up), and while they still made less than equivalent men in equivalent positions in their field, they still made a lot of money.

 

And for somebody like me, a small business owner back in school to get a teaching license and paying child support....I had far less discretionary income than the women I went out with.

 

Make no mistake....I'm hardly destitute. But I'm also not making $150-200k/yr, and many women I went out with did. So, while equivalent men in their field probably made more money than they did, I sure didn't. OK....so while income inequality is real, I'm supporting 3 kids, paying for school, etc, and I want to have dinner with a woman who has no kids and makes double what I make, I'm supposed to pay because her male counterpart in her field makes 15% more?

 

Ummm, yeah....no. We can split the tab.

[Ruby Slippers]

Since the dawn of time, the best men have been providing for their women - shelter, warmth, food, protection, and money. A blip of social engineering in our time doesn't change that.

 

I've never dated a man who expected me to be the provider or pay for dates.

 

I have met a couple of gigolo types along the way who obviously make a habit of sponging off women - but those guys turn me off completely. They don't even seem like men to me.

[Priv]

1. Do you even know what glow in the dark boxershorts cost? Waaaaaaaay more than any lingerie she can come up with.

 

 

2. I like to date up and get a sugarmummy. So I am making damn sure she makes more than me.

 

 

3. Exactly why I want her to pay. You know how much the women I date are in demand?!?

[Emilia]

I share costs in the beginning, I need to get comfortable with a guy and I really want to understand what he can afford! before I'm comfortable with him paying for things.

 

My view is that if you are only prepared to take the benefits of equality without sharing the responsibility, you are not a feminist so please don't use that word.

[clia]

I'm not particularly convinced by any of her reasons. The underwear and makeup reasons are particularly stupid. While yes, women spend more on those things, I don't think we necessarily do it only because of men. I like to look nice, so I buy makeup and nice underwear even when I'm not actively dating.

 

Personally, I like the more traditional form of dating, where the man asks the woman out and pays the bill. I don't know exactly why; it just feels nice when a man makes a plan and treats. It's never been a problem to find these types of men. I have no problems taking turns paying once we start seeing each other regularly. I am not a fan of splitting the check. That seems really unromantic to me.

[xxoo]

Who spends $30 on a pair of knickers?

[Radu]

I used to write and believe that women should split the bill with men on early dating [first couple of dates].

Now i don't.

 

There is power in being the one who pays, and if you know how to, you can send the right message [don't take me for a chump with a full purse !].

 

Does it really matter who pays on that first date that much ?

Keep it cheap, make it fun [let her see you and who you are], and remember that she is interested in you as much as you are interested in her .... if she makes a big case later on about the fact that you did not spend a lot on her, or that you expect her to split the bill later on in dates, dump her, you just learned a lot about her.

[Radu]

Who spends $30 on a pair of knickers?

 

Probably someone who expects a first date to have a tab of hundreds of dollars.

[Got it]

For me it depends. I do think the one that initiated the date should pay. So if I asked a guy out I will pay. If I am asked out on a date, and I realized I do NOT like the person (as this has happened. Man would not stop complaining about his ex), I will pay the bill. This means there are no loose ends, I do not "owe" anything, and we are good to never see each other again.

 

I am very big on a back and forth so will take turns planning dates, paying, etc. I do think there is "power" in who pays so I want to keep it 50/50 so I am not endebted any more than I care to be.

[TheyCallMeOx]

Since I would say that men pursue first dates more than women do, I would agree that there's nothing wrong with a man paying for the first date. If he initiates the first date, which is probably the case, then there's no problem. I've always believed that the person who initiates the first date, should pay for the first date. If you initiate something with someone, you should expect to:

 

1) pay for the person

2) split the tabs

 

That really goes for any circumstance. If you want something strong enough, you'd do anything to get it. You shouldn't expect people to always pay for the things you want. If you're an adult...you go out, and get it yourself. What's the problem? If your partner wants to tag along, great. You can pay for them if you want, you can split the tabs, but you can't expect your partner to pay for something when it wasn't even his/her idea in the first place.

 

If a woman approaches a man at a bar, she should be the one buying him a drink. I've heard too many stories about women getting free drinks and things like that just by manipulating men into believing that they're actually interested. To me, that's just complete bullsh*t. Also, I think it's complete bullsh*t that a man would buy a woman drinks just to try and get into her pants; to me, that's no different than prostitution, but that's another thread.

 

The rule should apply to every circumstance: if you initiate, expect to pay or split tabs. Plain and simple. No if's, and's, or but's. People can still pay for you, but that's because they want to, rather than have to. You don't have to do sh*t for someone, nor should society believe that you become less of a man if you don't stick up for yourself once in a while by saying...hey, you initiated me. If you want me, you're gonna have to pitch in.

 

If someone wants to pay for their significant other on everything, whatever helps them sleep at night.

 

With all that being said, I'm going to say that I almost completely disagree with the blog/article.

 

I'll start with the 2nd reason, because I find that to be the most sexist bullsh*t I've ever heard.

 

Statistically, men might make more; it can be a shame. I do physically labor, and would absolutely love a woman to try and do what I do. If she can do what I do, give her equal pay. However, if she can't do her part of the job, then she doesn't do her part of the work. Why should you get equal pay for not doing your job? Not only that, but you may be bringing people down with your inability to get the job done which may actually cost the company MORE money. I don't see a problem with women making equal pay provided they can do the same job. However, if a woman sits on her *ss all day pressing a few buttons on the computer every once in a while, that's nothing. If I had the choice between getting paid the money I make now and getting paid on the computer, I would definitely choose the computer. However, I can't get a computer job where I work because, well, women occupy it. If you want the easy job, you get paid less. That should apply to both men and women.

 

What if there's a guy who makes 8.75 an hour, and he's going on a first date with a woman who makes 10.25 an hour? She makes more than he does. He might make more if he did her job, but the bottom line is that she makes more money. Does that mean that the person who makes the most should always pay for first-dates?

 

If a man was smart, he wouldn't tell her how much he makes until he's in a relationship with her. People can make assumptions on how much you make, but if they just straight up ask "so how much you make a year?" That just screams "gold-digger," and I'm not interested in trophy wives. It's a real turn off to me. I'm more than just a number; I'm a human being with dreams, aspirations, a personality, love, etc. If we compared how much we made prior to the first date, it would feel too much like a business transaction. I'm not paying a woman to love me. Just because men may make more, on average, than women do doesn't mean sh*t. You initiate, you pay or split the tabs. I don't give a flying f*ck what society says.

 

The first reason is also the 2nd most bullsh*t answer. Women don't wear makeup, do their hair, wear sexy clothes, wear comfortable bras, etc for other men; they do it for everyone. More importantly, they don't do everything they do just for one particular person. When a woman gets into a long-term relationship with a man, she's not looking good for him because she's been looking good ever since she got into high school. She may do different things for him, like wear that dress he likes more often, or not wear panties under that short skirt so he can cop a feel at a restaurant. She can also wear that necklace he gave her last year during a date, or other things he gave her, etc. She may even do her makeup a certain way if he likes it a certain way. However, a woman is always going to look good with or without a man in her life. She buys all that sh*t for comfort-ability, for sexiness, etc. She buys it because she wants to. Telling a woman to not go out in public with makeup on is almost considered a sin. I don't need a woman to look great on a first date. If I spend 20 dollars to look good, I wouldn't expect her to spend more than 20 dollars to look good. Fair is fair. You go above and beyond, that's your choice. I will appreciate it because I know that women take a long time on stuff like that, but I'm not obligated to do anything in return. It's just like when a woman shaves her lady bits. It's nice to know that a woman would anticipate having sex with me, but if I'm not in the mood...I'm not in the mood. Of course, that would never happen because I'm always ready to go, but there could be circumstances where I really don't want to do anything and I really shouldn't feel like less of a man just because I didn't have sex with a woman who shaved her lady bits for me.

 

On the first date, you can't judge how much a woman puts into her makeup until you have more dates with her. If she spends the same amount of time she does doing a "girl's night out," then she's really doing the same amount she normally would do. However, down the road, in a relationship, if she were wearing my favorite dress, or wearing the necklace I gave her, I would be particularly turned on and may want to pay for her. But a first date, what she does is appreciated, but completely irrelevant to whether I should pay or not. Whether you decided to wear your push-up bra or regular bra should have no influence on whether I pay or not. If I initiate, I wouldn't give a sh*t if you weren't wearing a bra at all. Physically it's appealing to look at your breasts while I'm eating a ribeye steak, but I'm going to pay because I initiated, not because your tits are about to pop out of your shirt.

 

The third reason is the only reason I can PARTIALLY agree with. When you go on a date with someone, it's supposed to be taken seriously. Our time and resources are valuable. If I'm only interested in having sex with a woman, I'm not going to pretend that an expensive date to a restaurant is going to hide that fact. When I'm interested in a woman sexually, she knows. If she wants to get laid, and I want to get laid, I can make that happen. When two people only want each other sexually, it's hard to pretend you're interested in them any other way. I'm not going to go to a restaurant, spend a lot of money, try to have a conversation with her when I know I don't care much about her personality, and she doesn't care much about mine, because it's just going to be awkwardly silent, and unnecessary. Eat before we get laid, you shave your ladybits, I'll shave mine, I'll bring the condoms, hey, bye. Bam.

 

I know text and phone conversations are limited, but you can usually decide whether you're interested in the person or not before the first date. If you're going to go on a date, you're expected to be interested in that person. Otherwise, why go out with someone you're not even interested in? If I meet a woman at Waffle House and the only thing I know about her is her phone number, I don't expect to take her out to some fancy restaurant and pay 60 bucks for a meal. Instead, we'd go out for coffee, or something cheap, so I can actually take the time to learn about her rather than try to learn about her while shoving my face into a giant bowl of over-priced chicken Alfredo pasta. If we're all true with our intentions in the beginning, we can cut a lot of the bullsh*t. And a "quality" woman is more than just a pretty face to me. I don't care if you were Angelina Jolie in a Tomb Raider outfit; I'd still want to get to know you first before we go out to extravagant places.

 

Besides, I like picnics on first dates. My ex and I went on a picnic for a first date, and it was fantastic. Dinner and a movie can always come later, but I like my first dates to be sociable and fun, not awkward and limited social. As they say...be yourself. If I can't be myself with a woman, or if she doesn't like the way I do first dates, whatever the case may be, I'll find someone else. No problem.

[OwMyEyeball]

Looks like the article should have read:

 

3 Reasons Why the Higher Earner Should Pay for Dates

 

Point #1, especially on the topic of underwear, speaks to poor purchasing decisions. Material and labour considered, underwear for both sexes should cost about the same.

 

And for the record, I spend $30 per pair myself on UnderArmour boxers that I adore. Got myself 10 pairs that I expect to last a long while.

 

Point #2 takes a generalization and applies it to the specific situation. The earning power of each is pairing will vary.

 

On the note that women's earnings are 80%: that of men is a reflection of the career paths women choose, which tend to be more risk averse. In a market economy, greater risks reap greater rewards. On a job position by job position basis, women have reached parity with men.

 

Point #3 makes a good argument in and of itself (linking the expense of dating with selectivity of dates) but applies to both parties, hence is not valid towards the main argument - that men should pay for all dates. If women were paying they would have just as much reason to be selective.

 

Overall the article feels like a silly attempt to adhere to age old traditions that no longer apply in the modern setting.

 

In terms of fairness, I believe the person who initiates and plans the date should pay, since the person on the receiving end may not be as excited to have their budget squeezed. It's common courtesy.

 

However future payments are determined will come about naturally through a combination of intuition, shared values & beliefs and communication.

[NJ123]

First date should be paid for by the guy. Than after that you take turns.

[preraph]

#1 Reason: Because women are still only being paid 74 cents on the dollar of what men overall get paid.

[tatersalad]

Cal me old fashioned, but I consider myself to be a Southern Gentleman and always pay for dates. Why? Because it is a part of being chivalrous.

[BlueIris]

I don’t think the reasons the author gave are good.

 

I just think it’s sexier and flirtier and part of a traditional male-female dynamic that I looooove. The cost my lipstick or new dress has nothing to do with it. I like being courted so I date men who court and act in the traditional roles, including paying. I don’t see any point in dating a man who doesn’t court me. He’s just a buddy then, like a girlfriend.

 

I’d never force anyone to pay for me. I just assume he will. But I always carry cash so I can pay my bit if that’s what he wants. I’m not going to date someone again who invites me to a dinner out and wants me to pay half the tab. But I'm not going to cause a scene or a fuss if he expected me to pay.

 

I pay when I’m insisting on doing something that’s my thing- like going to an NHL game (which I also dress up for, albeit in a player’s jersey/sweater, which costs more than most dresses, if cost is an issue. I also supply my date with a jersey to wear. haha).

 

I pay when I break up with him during the date.

 

In a few cases, I've paid the whole tab when I couldn’t wait to get away from the guy. I say goodbye, tell him I have the tab, pay the waitress more than enough in cash, and leave. It's the fastest exit.

 

Those are the only times that I can think of when I expect to pay.

 

But it's all about the dynamic and the "dance" of flirting dating and romance, to me. So it's a visceral thing.

 

I know lots of men who don’t like to always pay or think it’s wrong. There are lots of ladies who don’t mind that, so those men have many options and don't need or want to date me.

 

But i see the author's reasons as beside the point and pretty thin.

[Shepp]

I don't expect anyone to pay for me - not my guy friends, and certainly not my date!!

 

 

There's no way id ask out a girl and then let her pay! My mum taught me to always be the first man to put his hand in his pocket - and you have to do what your mum teaches you right

 

 

Sure, i'll never be rich, but is there anything worse than being rich AND cheap!

[xxoo]

It's romantic when a man pays. That's enough reason for many of us.

[WhatIsLove2014]

It's romantic when a man pays. That's enough reason for many of us.

 

I agree. The reasons listed in the article...ehh idk. But I think it's just nice and sweet.

[OwMyEyeball]

#1 Reason: Because women are still only being paid 74 cents on the dollar of what men overall get paid.

This is a misleading stat that focuses on an aggregate comparison. i.e. comparing the overall average annual earnings of each sex

 

On a job position by job position comparison the difference is minimal - around 97 cents on the dollar.

 

While there is still some inequality yet to be routed out, the male aggregate earnings are tipped largely by a greater willingness to work in higher risk fields and to work away from home for extended absences. Both of these factor in to higher wages.

 

All those stats aside, they don't in any way affect the financial disparity between a dating couple. That's on a purely case by case basis.

[Woggle]

I get that it feels good when a man wines and dines you and you feel like a woman but when some women preach day and night against traditional ways and then turn into 50s throwbacks when it comes to things that the man is supposed to do it sounds hypocritical. There are a lot of things women do that make a man feel good but if we voice our desire for them we are called sexist pigs.

[Priv]

I don’t think the reasons the author gave are good.

 

I just think it’s sexier and flirtier and part of a traditional male-female dynamic that I looooove. The cost my lipstick or new dress has nothing to do with it. I like being courted so I date men who court and act in the traditional roles, including paying. I don’t see any point in dating a man who doesn’t court me. He’s just a buddy then, like a girlfriend.

 

I’d never force anyone to pay for me. I just assume he will. But I always carry cash so I can pay my bit if that’s what he wants. I’m not going to date someone again who invites me to a dinner out and wants me to pay half the tab. But I'm not going to cause a scene or a fuss if he expected me to pay.

 

I pay when I’m insisting on doing something that’s my thing- like going to an NHL game (which I also dress up for, albeit in a player’s jersey/sweater, which costs more than most dresses, if cost is an issue. I also supply my date with a jersey to wear. haha).

 

I pay when I break up with him during the date.

 

In a few cases, I've paid the whole tab when I couldn’t wait to get away from the guy. I say goodbye, tell him I have the tab, pay the waitress more than enough in cash, and leave. It's the fastest exit.

 

Those are the only times that I can think of when I expect to pay.

 

But it's all about the dynamic and the "dance" of flirting dating and romance, to me. So it's a visceral thing.

 

I know lots of men who don’t like to always pay or think it’s wrong. There are lots of ladies who don’t mind that, so those men have many options and don't need or want to date me.

 

But i see the author's reasons as beside the point and pretty thin.

 

I am curious. In your opinion, how long does this dating phase take? I am all for traditional male-female dynamics but at some point the above seems awfully like taking advantage to me.

[Xiang]

*cough*

I live in a **** country with bad pay, i can probably only go out dating to some restaurant 3 times a month, the rest i need for bills and whatnot.

EVEN SO, despite my bad financial status, i pay for the dates, i insist actually.

 

Mostly it's because if i called you out on a date, i intend to take care of IT, all of IT, including the pay. I'm courting your ass over here, other dates sure we can split.

But unless you insist to much because you're the kind of woman who can take CARE of herself (had to date those), i drop it, i don't want unnecesary unplesantries out of nothing, and let you share.

 

 

One gal i dates that insisted i don't have to pay she can pay for herself, was slightly ashamed but still filled with PRIDE when she noticed she didn't have $$ on her.

"Okay, can you pay for me? I don't have change, pay you back next time." xDlol?

There was no next time.

[Keenly]

#1 Reason: Because women are still only being paid 74 cents on the dollar of what men overall get paid.

 

Pretty sure this is a false statistic. One that still gets repeated even though its proven wrong.

 

 

 

 

Heres my take on this. I like to pay on dates. I get a certain satisfaction from it. However, when the attitude of a women shifts from being thankful and surprised that I paid for our outing, and it turns into an attitude of expectation and entitlement, that's is when she no longer deserves to be paid for.

 

 

Remember ladies, your actions make the rules. Act entitled, or act like you expect it, you'll end up losing the mans respect.

 

Reward the men who act gentlemenly with admiration and affirmation and you'll see chivalry make a comeback .