I always just go by who asks who out. If I do the asking, then I pay. If he asks, he pays. If its a non-date date, we split. You have your moochers (did I even spell that right) who just go on dates for free food, and then every once in a while you meet someone who actually *thinks* about someone else besides themselves.

Then again, I live on a college campus and am a senior, so things are slightly skewed since many of us are poor-ish.

Either way, my dad has always said that men should pay on a first date, and my mom agrees. They're my parents, I've been told they are always right.

Posted by: fima at December 11, 2007 10:23 PM

He wants her to pay for her own meal, and then what? Sleep with him for NOTHING?!? What a cheap bastard...

Posted by: Morbideus at December 11, 2007 10:23 PM

Excellent advice, Amy - he can man up and deal or be a pissy, lonely loser. Life be hard.

However:

Life isn’t fair, Bucky. Deal with it.

I think my irony meter just broke.

But good column.

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 1:09 AM

Thanks, A.R.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 12, 2007 1:13 AM

Good Advice Amy! I don't think that anyone could have said it better.

Posted by: Blackjack at December 12, 2007 2:54 AM

I do have one caveat to this, though. If these women are dashing to the latrine in an effort to induce the man to pay, then they are classless. They should just stay there and let him handle it. If he doesn't, don't see him again. Likewise, if they bolt to the restroom when the time comes, consider that tuition in the School of Life and don't ask them out again.

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 3:40 AM

I do agree with you about the dating theme, but (there is always a but) what about when you are married.
I have been married for about 12 years and my wife has also worked for many of them. I am not trying to belittle her contributions to the household just clarifying the point. Her attitude about our salaries and/tips is that what is "Hers is Hers and what is mine is ours". I don't really have a problem with paying the bills in the house but it is the general attitude that upsets me. She, of course is unwilling to anything but her point of view but I just can't get over the feeling that I am being used half the time.
I should point out that I do make more money then my wife, as I said it is just an attitude problem for me.

Posted by: Matt at December 12, 2007 4:23 AM

Matt - you are one of surprisingly many couples who don't share your money. I find this attitude hard to understand; getting married seems to me to imply the ultimate in sharing. The old vows have a bit about "with all my worldly goods I thee endow" and I assume you share your precious bodily fluids.

Within days of getting married, my wife and I opened a joint account and that was that. No hesitation, no holding back.

I too would be upset at your wife's attitude.

Posted by: Norman at December 12, 2007 5:04 AM

I believe that married couples should have a joint account; I also believe that for sanity's sake, each couple should have a separate account.

After all, you don't literally merge into "one person"; you should be able to keep your own interests, and that requires money, and you certainly don't need to sit down and argue about cash every time you want to go drinking or to an art class.

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 5:13 AM

We have joint and the separate accounts. We got a house and it needed work so neither of us has shit for spending money. As far as the dating thing I kind of assumed that the guy paying was expected when I was young. Now that I'm old and senile (note attempted sarcasm) with more experince I'm definatly for the asker does the paying. This works up to a point.

Right now our income ratios are 3:1 in my favor. I tend to pay most of the bills. Which I'm fine with, however if I was covering all the bills (and I had no play money) and she kept everything of hers as play money I'd be on the phone to a lawyer in a heart beat, freezing the assets on the next phone call. I'd be fine with the setup as long as we both had about the same amount of spending money. If you both have approximately equal spending money then I don't see why you feel like your being used. I am just curious as to what her justification for the attitude is if the spending money is unequal.

Posted by: vlad at December 12, 2007 6:25 AM

BF and I live together, and we have separate accounts - his is in a credit union, mine at a regular bank. I get paid semi-monthly, he gets paid every other week. I have a check book, he doesn't. When he gets paid, he gives me x amount of cash to cover rent, and whatever he's put on our one joint credit card. When I get paid, I pay the utilities and buy groceries, make my car payment, and pay off whatever I put on our joint credit card. I also cover all costs for my daughters, but BF also will buy some groceries (he and the girls like the same kinds of cookies, cereals and sodas) and beer and most of the time, wine for me. If he needs a check for something, he'll give me cash, I'll write the check and then deposit the cash. In almost 5 years, we've never had a sqaubble about money, except when I went to Nawlins, and even then, when I pointed out it was my money, not his, that I was spending, he was cool with it. I guess we've gotten pretty good at sharing. o_O

Posted by: Flynne at December 12, 2007 6:32 AM

You know, sometimes i wish these letters came with pictures....you know cute little glamor shots with head cocked to the side...chin resting on fist.

Posted by: kg at December 12, 2007 6:32 AM

Good advice, Amy! The guy does sound like a prick, (rather than asking for advice, he just wrote a snotty little rant,) but yeah; my philosophy has always been that the person who does the asking pays on the first date, and then I like to take turns thereafter. Human beings are one of the few (if not the only,) species that has the ability to rise above some of the less savory aspects of our genetic code, so I don't think it's out of line for men to expect that if the sexes are equal under the law, in the working world, and in the bedroom, that our wallets be just as open as theirs. Just my two cents.

Posted by: Kim at December 12, 2007 6:53 AM

One reason the girl may expect him to pay is that the date was horrible and he pissed and moaned or talked excessively about himself. If the date goes badly cause he's an ass then yes he should definatly pay. Based on the letter he has the flavoring of an ass so this may happen to him more often then most.

Posted by: vlad at December 12, 2007 7:06 AM

"After all, you don't literally merge into "one person"; you should be able to keep your own interests, and that requires money, and you certainly don't need to sit down and argue about cash every time you want to go drinking or to an art class."

Thanks, A_R. Definitely agree there...and have argued w/ a few ppl who feel the opposite. Bill paying and saving for things (vacation, kids' college) should be shared. Extra money (if there is extra, but I always find a way to save for my next perfume fix) can be put into one's own account to do w/ as s/he damn well pleases. As long as the couple's goals and needs are met left over money shouldn't be up for negotiation.

Some women have to ask their husbands for money to get their hair done. Maybe if the wife is a recovering credit card or gambling addict she might need overseeing...but other than that I don't want to marry a second dad.

(this is also why I feel women shouldn't stop working...not to mention more women need to throw cash into 401k's!!)

One time I actually encountered a woman who complained that her husband, who made twice what she makes, required they split all bills 50/50. He also set the standard of living - so, she was stuck splitting a mortgage which was more than she could stomach. She had almost no money at the end of the month. He had enough to blow on toys. They were trying to get pregnant and she had to foot the bill for all the expensive fertility treatments and he wouldn't help b/c it was "her body that wasn't getting pregnant."

I said "Umm, ever think that it's a GOOD thing you can't get pregnant right now?!? Stop taking the drugs and divorce the bastard." I never found out what happened to her...I can see him saying "hey, you pushed the baby out of your body so you have to pay for everything it needs." Nice.

Posted by: Gretchen at December 12, 2007 7:17 AM

Matt (the poster above), I am curious whether your wife lived by herself and maintained a place of her own for any length of time before you were married. When I read your post it sounded to me like she was living with her parents or something and has never had to pay her own bills.

A_R's comment about having one joint account (for the house payment, utilities, groceries, etc.) and then separate accounts makes sense to me. Separate accounts can't disguise what the legal effect of marriage really is, though. If you each put half of what you make into the joint account and then have what's left over as your own, one partner can still be on the line for the other partner's credit card debts. The law doesn't care how you arrange your bank accounts. If your spouse is defaulting on debts, they will come after your ass anyway because legally, you ARE viewed as a single entity. One of many reasons I prefer not to get married.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at December 12, 2007 7:23 AM

I'd hope that by the time you decided to marry someone you'd be certain of your partner-to-be's spending & credit habits so that any debt taken on wouldn't be a surprise. Choose mates well.

In our discussion about this (prior to getting hitched) my husband wanted to dump everything into a joint account. I pointed out that didn't allow each partner to do their own thing from time to time, "treat" the other or plan surprises (Say, what's this charge at the Hyatt Spa?) We decided on one joint account that we'd use for joint investments we make (we contribute equally) and the rest in our own accounts. Since most of our money is going into reno's right now, we basically just take turns buying things. I make 3x more $$ than him, so mortgage and bills come out of my account, but anytime I've been short (building a house is EXPENSIVE!) he's always there with cash. We basically view it as pooled funds, just managed individually. Works well for us.

Oh, and great advice Amy. Hope all our answers to your survey a while back helped just a little in meeting your deadline!

Posted by: moreta at December 12, 2007 7:46 AM

I find I have erection problems if I don't pay and I also carry an enormous money clip (in lieu of socks.) I also drive a yellow maserati/ferrari/lamborgini that gets 5 gallons per mile just so everyone knows who the man is.

What I find amusing about so many out, loud, and proud modern mainstream feminists is not that they are not paying, but the rationalizations and justifications for insisting on not paying. Men pay because women only get 77 cents to the dollar from the employer. Women's nights are fine because women's shirts cost more to clean. At the same time they often rationalize not paying, they will bash any evolutionary psychological discussions of this, or any comparison at all to the behavior of other animal species. (I think they might share an insistence that we did not evolve from monkeys with some of the religous wackos they hate.)

Posted by: jerry at December 12, 2007 8:06 AM

There is one simple word a man should say when encountering anything unacceptable when dating women -- "Next!"

If a woman is not paying her fair share and this is unacceptable, move on. Don't try to change or influence her behavior, she'll either get annoyed or she'll temporarily change.

Do not accept the unacceptable. Pursue your interests and deal with what comes up.

Posted by: canaryguy at December 12, 2007 8:07 AM

"I'd hope that by the time you decided to marry someone you'd be certain of your partner-to-be's spending & credit habits so that any debt taken on wouldn't be a surprise. Choose mates well."

You'd think, wouldn't you? Yet money is the biggest reason people get divorced. People can be very, very sneaky about hiding spending, especially if they've developed a gambling problem or have incurred a lot of credit card debt. Some spouses are caught completely off guard.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at December 12, 2007 8:23 AM

Amy, even you the champion of progress, throwing off old mores and accepting self-responsibility, does not see fit to let this last vestige of supposed "chivalry" die. Equality of the sexes means equal responsibility. I am surprised to see you use the "whoever asks pays" logic because this is yet another way of basically saying, Men should always pay. (the vast majority of women would never ask a man out).

Paying for your date comes from a time when women didn't work. It made sense then. But as men and women are now financial equals, it makes sense that dating should be split. My time is equally as valuable as any woman I've ever dated, so why should I pretend otherwise by paying for her?

I am a little disappointed, Amy. I expected a great rallying cry to accept the responsibilites of financial independence. Instead, you harkened back to a time most unequal.

the reality is men have more to offer than there wallets and women have more to offer than their pussies.

Posted by: flighty at December 12, 2007 8:33 AM

Yet money is the biggest reason people get divorced. People can be very, very sneaky about hiding spending, especially if they've developed a gambling problem or have incurred a lot of credit card debt. Some spouses are caught completely off guard.

The following article says differently, however, YMMV.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/SuddenlySingle/MoneyIsntTheCulpritInMostDivorces.aspx

Posted by: Flynne at December 12, 2007 8:35 AM

Hmmm. It usually works when I just copy and paste but this time it didn't...

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/SuddenlySingle/MoneyIsntTheCulpritInMostDivorces.aspx

Posted by: Flynne at December 12, 2007 8:37 AM

Well, any way, the article starts with this line: Don't blame it on the bank account. Despite common wisdom to the contrary, there's little evidence pointing to financial difficulties as being a major factor in the breakup of marriages.
And then further in the article is this:

The more recent research Andersen reviewed relegated money to a lesser role in divorce. Rarely was it ranked higher than fourth or fifth, with other causes -- incompatibility, lack of emotional support, abuse and sexual problems -- typically ranking higher.

Money causes friction, of course. In a study of married couples from 1980 to 1992, 70% reported some kind of money problems. When Andersen looked deeper at that database, however, he found that those problems didn't necessarily lead to divorce.

Posted by: Flynne at December 12, 2007 8:41 AM

For anyone interested, that link worked on Amy's blog page.

Posted by: Flynne at December 12, 2007 8:46 AM

Thanks for the info, Flynne! It certainly calls into question some of the older information I had read.

Those reasons cited (incompatibility, lack of emotional support, abuse and sexual problems) caught my attention, mainly because I think those things have been around for a long time, but it's really only relatively recently that people started getting divorced over them.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at December 12, 2007 8:52 AM

Oh I absolutely agree with you PJ. Many of my parents' and grandparents' friends stayed together when a lot of us were asking why, due to the apparent incompatibility of their personalities (among other things). I think in their generations, and ours too, people sometimes get married for the wrong reasons, and then stay together for the wrong reasons as well, because of societal expectations, and other factors, like family expectations, as well.

Posted by: Flynne at December 12, 2007 9:21 AM

Check out today's letter in Annie's Mailbox - the one written by the 27-year-old guy who just got engaged to his girlfriend of five years. Gah! File that one among Letters I Wish Had Been Written to Amy Alkon.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at December 12, 2007 9:32 AM

In the 2005 movie Guess who's coming to dinner, Bernie Mac's character bases his assessment of people he deals with almost entirely on their credit report. I think there is something to be said for that.

Regarding who buys, what do gay people do?

Posted by: martin at December 12, 2007 9:50 AM

From Marc Rudov's "Chivalry died in the Garden of Eden" : "as an author and radio guest who has contact with men and women from all over the world, I know firsthand that this lesson is lost on the women who constantly decry the dearth or death of chivalry. Too many females simply don't accept the premise that, once they leave their parents Gardens of Eden,they are choosing the responsibilities and accountability of adulthood. Unfortunately, these coddled, entitled women want the double standard of one foot in the real world;college degrees, big salaries, home ownership, and one in the garden of special privileges; presumed wining & dining, child custody, etc. Such a woman wants to achieve and to be taken care of. But, life doesn't work that way."

Posted by: flighty at December 12, 2007 9:54 AM

flighty - I believe you're right in principle, and I wouldn't date anyone who was attempting to gold-dig. However, if I ever want a chance at female companionship, paying for dates is still the standard.

And frankly, I like the power-dynamic at work. Unfortunately, as women become more financially independent, that power dynamic changes.

Posted by: Ayn_Randian at December 12, 2007 10:00 AM

Got a link, Pirate Jo? It works best over here if it's filtered through tinyurl.com and pasted in. I'll see about enabling HTML. I think Gregg disabled it during the worst of our spam problem.

And sorry guys, women who are rich and powerful want richer and more powerful men. David Buss mentions this briefly in Evolution of Desire -- I forget if it was his study, but somebody disproved the "theory of structural powerlessness," the notion that women only go for powerful men because they don't have power.

Here's his book (and I just enabled links here, so this should come out live, and you should be able to just paste in the URL from now on, but just one per comment, or you'll get kicked into my spam folder. Got two links? Post two comments.)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046500802X?ie=UTF8&tag=advicegoddess-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=046500802X

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 12, 2007 10:20 AM

And I for one welcome our new biologically determined overladies! Of course, consistency in this approach will require full acknowledgement of our heritage as a sexually dimorphic species. Men are bigger and stronger than women, and this has certain biological bases and implications. And since we're going with biology to determine decent behavior, please don't snark at us when we beat y'all up to keep y'all in our harems... We're biologically programmed, doncha know.

Or, we could work towards equal civilized accountability for all genders. Misogyny sucks. So does misandry.

Posted by: phunctor at December 12, 2007 10:28 AM

"If these women are dashing to the latrine in an effort to induce the man to pay, then they are classless. They should just stay there and let him handle it."

Well, sometimes, ya just gotta go at the end of a long meal. If that's the case, what are you supposed to do -- hold it until the check comes, it's fully paid, and then make the guy sit around waiting while you head to the ladies' room? Seems kinda dumb. If the guy really thinks the woman should be chipping in (like, if she asked him out), or wants her to watch in admiration as he pays, he can just leave the check on the table until she gets back and pretend it just got there or that he's been answering a vital blackberry message in her absence and never got to it.

I used to always insist on paying half the check until I did a survey of my male friends. Every one of them said that if a woman offered to do that, they'd take it as a sign she wasn't romantically interested, and that if the guy let her pay half, it meant that HE wasn't all that interested. At first I thought that was ridiculous, but when I looked back, I realized that just about all of the guys I'd dated who turned out to be boyfriend material had insisted on paying for at least the first date. Now I let the guy pay for the first, and if he insists on it, the second and third dates. After that, he should let me pull my weight and take him out half the time.

Posted by: Gail at December 12, 2007 10:34 AM

When I first started dating my wife I was in college. She had already graduated and was making good money. I still paid for the first date which was drinks. Not that it was a date but still. I tried to pay for following dates but I just could not (one of the reasons I still loath my first Alma mata with an iron hard hatred). Now that I think back on it I did feel just a bit emasculated by being unable to pay. Then there were all these ass holes trying to pick her up based on my in ability to pay. Not pretty. The old inviter pays gives an arbitrary legitimacy to the guy paying for the first date, since by far most of the first date asking is done by men.

Posted by: vlad at December 12, 2007 11:08 AM

Or, we could work towards equal civilized accountability for all genders. Misogyny sucks. So does misandry.

Try getting that "equal civilized accountability" message to your genes.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 12, 2007 11:08 AM

Pirate Jo wrote:
"Check out today's letter in Annie's Mailbox - the one written by the 27-year-old guy who just got engaged to his girlfriend of five years. Gah! File that one among Letters I Wish Had Been Written to Amy Alkon."
OMG was that priceless!!! I looooved the response: if your sex life has fizzled after 5 years, CLEARLY she is a lesbian/needs medical intervention. eeesh.

As for this LW:
Fine, we'll go halvsies on dinner. But ONLY if you spend the night wearing a push-up bra. I have to. It's only fair.

That said, the 3rd meal is ALWAYS on me. I make it obvious. I ask HIM out, call him to confirm, pick the restaurant, and make the reservations. Then I grab the check, and, if he protests, I laughingly tell him that it's on me but that he better put out later. If this makes him uncomfortable, I doubt we'd be that compatable anyway.

After that, we take turns or do the one-person- buys-dinner, the-other-buys-drinks-later thing.

Posted by: sofar at December 12, 2007 11:23 AM

I'm confused. Last time I remember you discussing this in "Future Hock" http://www.advicegoddess.com/columns/column37.html

you seemed to come out on the side that women should pay half. I guess the two positions aren't exactly contradictory, but I'm still a little confused. Should women pay half? If they should pay half, should men insist on it or just take whatever life deals them? Did you just change your mind.
I normally pay for dates because that's what we always did in my family, but I don't know what the modern etiquette is, and I certainly feel that some women accept dates with people they wouldn't go out with just for the free dinner.

Posted by: Mike at December 12, 2007 11:30 AM

Flighty,

Here's the deal...guys pay...in the beginning. Girls shouldn't ask guys out either...ever. Guys don't really like that. I cannot stand to be around a whining, cheap asshole. If they are, I do what canaryguy said.

"the reality is men have more to offer than there wallets and women have more to offer than their pussies."

No shit. Not only do guys offer their wallets, but they offer their protection: the arm around my neck makes me feel safe. The desire to care for me (even though you know [and are not intimidated that}I can take care of myself)makes me impressed. The classy way you handle your financial decision to take me out makes me proud to be in your presence. A continual excited interest unerred by a tacky discussion of money makes for an important evening.

In return, not only will you have the prospect of my pussy. But, you will have the beautiful essence of my perfectly groomed self for you and everyone else to admire. Additionally, I will make it clear that I have eyes for no one else in the room but you. I will carry myself with a sexy classiness that will create eyes of envy everywhere we go. I will be flirty and genuine and great conversation, which will make you feel like such a MAN!

If you turn out to be a man (and not a crybaby wah wah wahing about equality of the sexes in the modern age of enlightenment), then we will enjoy many more evenings together: sometimes naked, sometimes clothed. Sometimes you pay, sometimes I will. And when I cook for you, especially my secret recipe porterhouse, you will find it hard not to fall in love with me. And when you moan and groan at every mouthful and squeeze me so tight for cooking for you just right, it will be hard for me not to fall in love with you.

It's a perfect little dance.

I'm sure you can find someone who thinks the way you do, but the odds create a smaller pool to START with.

But do what ya do.

Posted by: kg at December 12, 2007 11:54 AM

AR: One doesn't need to pay for dates to get female companionship. I split the bill with my current girlfriend from the first date on and we've had a lovely relationship of a year thus far. Attraction does not occur because you paid for a meal. It occurs throughout the date, with words, stolen glances, conversation and a little innuendo. If there is real attraction, then splitting the bill at a moderately priced bar or restaurant should not be a problem because any sane women will not give up a potential boyfriend for the sake of 15 bucks. And if there is no attraction, then why would you want to waste your money on someone who doesn't give one lick about you?

Gail: I admire your attempts to be honest and the resulting confusion. Obviously there is a great deal of confusion about this issue now a days because everyone suspects differently when the check rolls around. But simply because that was your experience, doesn't mean every man should pay for every first date.

Posted by: flighty at December 12, 2007 12:02 PM

any sane women will not give up a potential boyfriend for the sake of 15 bucks.

Again, it's not about sanity, it's about women being hard-wired to look for men who are providers, whether or not they can or will pay for themselves throughout the rest of the relationship.

You, as a man, can decide you will not continue with women who do not open their wallets on the first date, but you increase your chances with women if you do pay. You will lose fewer mating opportunities. And women who are not gold diggers in the slightest will expect you to pay on date one and two.

Flighty, men are hard-wired to look for beautiful women, "beauty" as we consider it being features that indicate ability to bear and care for a healthy child, thus passing on the man's genes (along with the woman's, of course). What would you say if I said you should date women you find ugly because it's the fair thing to do?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 12, 2007 12:26 PM

I can't date a dude that will cry about $15 bucks. It makes me feel that he either doesn't know how to make enough money to suit his lifestyle or is not qualified to do so and has done nothing to rectify his credentials.

I make enough money and am able to budget well enough to live the life I want. I take care of myself and my kids. I don't receive child support or government funds. If you can't do the same, then I am not interested. Griping about $15 bucks for a couple glasses of wine will indicate to me that you have financial (and possibly other) problems.

I don't care if you make more money than I do or less, but I do care if you can't afford the lifesyle you want with some class.

Posted by: kg at December 12, 2007 12:27 PM

KG: I don't buy people's time and I certainly don't buy the "prospect of pussy."

If you were to go out with me, I would suspect that its because you were attracted to me. If we had a lovely evening, full of laughs great conversations, and a special bond was being created and you decided to end it because of $20, then here's what I would potentially think:

1. You were immediately willing to put a price tag on a chance for something special. Not an attractive quality.
2. A good date takes two people, why should the cost be the burden of one?
3. You think your time is more valuable than mine. It's not. I value my time as much as you value yours.
4. Your finances aren't in order enough to pay your own way.

Paying for a night out is about as sincere as $3 bill. Any idiot can pay for a date. But it takes a man who actually understands what women want to attract a woman without have to resort to expensive trickery.

Posted by: flighty at December 12, 2007 12:44 PM

You are the one who created the wallet/pussy significance of dating.

You're argument assumes money makes the genders equal and that, as a result, equality of the sexes is what "modern" people want. My argument is that the genders are not about equality...a balance is the way I like to look at it. Furthermore, I don't want to be in a relationship with a man who doesn't recognize the necessity of that balance.

Go out to dinner with a "modern" woman wearing a dash of lipstick and a pair of hoop earings that match your tie. Then split the check. Then let's talk about the need for equality of the sexes.

On another note, I always pay for every date with men I just want to fuck. It puts them in their place and creates an environment of a little less talk and a lot more action.

"KG: I don't buy people's time and I certainly don't buy the "prospect of pussy."

Bullshit. I guess you work for free too.

Posted by: kg at December 12, 2007 1:02 PM

oh yeah...and this:

"Paying for a night out is about as sincere as $3 bill. Any idiot can pay for a date. But it takes a man who actually understands what women want to attract a woman without have to resort to expensive trickery."

$15 bucks. $30 tops?

Get real.

Posted by: kg at December 12, 2007 1:03 PM

Actually my argument is that in terms of paying for a date the actual NEED for men to pay for the dates is out dated since women now often make as much if not more than the man they are dating.

Second of all cross dressing has nothing to do with anything, nor do I equate cross dressing with equality.

Lastly, how would you feel if the men you paid for that you "just want to fuck. because it puts them in their place and creates an environment of a little less talk and a lot more action" decided that after the date they didn't want to fuck at all. What if they still didn't want to fuck after the third date you paid for? Wouldn't you feel a little cheated?

How would you feel if a man said that about dating you? That he paid for you because it put you in your place, so that you would put out.

I don't know about you, but that sounds a lot worse than suggesting we split the bill.

Posted by: flighty at December 12, 2007 1:37 PM

I was raised with the philosophy that guy pays on the first few dates. Future dates were open to negotiation, one of the considerations being respective incomes. Once married the expectation and accepted model was joint accounts, joint bills all the way. When children arrive, working parent supports and if both parents are working then the split doesn't change. However, these days I absolutely will not share my accounts. Yes, I'll share the bills and split dinner, but my money is and will remain mine and solely under my control. Am I a bitch? No, but I was married for over 20 years, raised kids, ran our company, shared everything. Hubby ran off with pregnant girlfriend, all assets and all cash from the "joint accounts." Starting over in my late 40's has not been easy so self preservation will take precedence. I've already discovered that many men are not comfortable with my attitude toward money in a relationship. I recommend everyone maintain their own accounts, whether working or not, especially if they're raising children.

Posted by: Patty at December 12, 2007 1:51 PM

I don't like "cafeteria feminism," in which a woman picks and chooses which "rules" apply to her. That's what this guy thinks he's complaining about. But it isn't. I suspect his personality (or lack thereof) have sent many of his dates to an early grave and he want to even the score by making "them" pay.

I agree with Amy that whoever does the asking does the paying - even if the date blows...er...sucks...er...doesn't go well.

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at December 12, 2007 1:57 PM

Lastly, how would you feel if the men you paid for that you "just want to fuck. because it puts them in their place and creates an environment of a little less talk and a lot more action" decided that after the date they didn't want to fuck at all. What if they still didn't want to fuck after the third date you paid for? Wouldn't you feel a little cheated?

Huh?

Look, you can try to ignore the evolutionary hard-wiring all you want, and blather on about equality, but this notion that men should be providers doesn't trace back to feminism, it goes back 1.8 million years.

Saying women "should" pay is silly. I write for the real world, and tell people what will be the most effective strategies for getting what they want.

Most guys want dates, and sex, and they're not going to do so well in that department if they're campaigning for dating finance reform.

Asking to split the bill is tacky. When I had a boyfriend who was close to my age -- Gregg's a bit older, and he'd throw up if I paid -- we just picked up the check on alternate dates. I treat my little sister and my assistant (lunch whenever she's at my place, plus I make sure to buy the sparkling apple juice she likes). It's just a graceful way to be. If your wallet needs to be opened with a pliers, I don't want to know you and I certainly don't want to have sex with you.

P.S. With all this huffing and puffing about sex as an exchange, I have to mention that I slept with Gregg BEFORE the first date. (We met at the Apple store at The Grove and had Orange Crush for three hours, then he came a week later to take me to dinner, but we never left my house. The next morning, I tried to treat him at my local coffee place, and he about died. So he pays when we go out, no biggie. But, he knows that I was always willing to pay, and I'm with him because he's Gregg, not because he's buying.)

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 12, 2007 1:59 PM

"How would you feel if a man said that about dating you? That he paid for you because it put you in your place, so that you would put out." Hey he's being honest. Some people are for dating and some people are for fucking. There are some couples that should only happen for short times for only sex. We all know people who should only be screwing but made the mistake of dating, even getting married.

Posted by: vlad at December 12, 2007 2:05 PM

You misunderstand. If I take a dude out whom I just want to fuck, I have already been fucking him. It's a sure thing. In this situation, fuck first...eat later. Well, food-wise.

I thought you'd like the "put them in their place" bit.

Men didn't take women out to eat back in the less "equal" days because they were starving either. Men did it then for the same reason they do it now. Women were impressed with it then for the same reasons they are now; but, I believe more so now than before because most of us don't go only for the food or the money. We want to know what kind of guy you are. In that respect, I think dating is more genuine these days than before because people are there for LESS selfish reasons. Before, it was: I can't end up a spinster!

I will say it again. I don't need a man to pay for me, but to woo me right, he should or I am going to be less interested. Also, most of my girlfriends are hot. They don't generally choose the cutest guy or the most practical one. They choose guys who, initially, have a strength and confidence about them that is interesting and exciting. Dating is where both get to learn about each other and find out if they are compatible. These friends of mine also pay for dates after the first few.

I can't think of a girlfriend of mine who would torture herself by going out with an uninspiring guy just for a few free glasses of wine or free dinner. Are there gold diggers out there? Yes. Are you so easy to fool that you couldn't tell it (if not from initial body language) after one date or two? And if it happens to you a lot, maybe you need to learn to choose better people.

Posted by: kg at December 12, 2007 2:10 PM

"then he came a week later to take me to dinner, but we never left my house." Well now comes the question when does a date officially start and end? Depending on this answer you could have slept with him during your date.

BTW who paid for the orange crush?

"and I'm with him because he's Gregg, not because he's buying." Unless the guy is dumber than cold cement he should know that she's with him because of him (as a whole package) not just cause he pays for dinner. To suggest otherwise is to say that one would screw someone for a cheese burger. The letter writer appear to be of this persuasion.

Posted by: vlad at December 12, 2007 2:18 PM

KG Said: "I can't think of a girlfriend of mine who would torture herself by going out with an uninspiring guy just for a few free glasses of wine or free dinner."

I get it. What you're saying is that it's symbolism. A guy paying for the first couple dates is a symbol of his ability to protect and provide, whether or not it's necessary to do so in this day and age, or if both parties earn similar amounts of money.

So if it's the man's duty to pay for the date in the beginning, what is the woman's duty? Do women have duties at all in dating? If so, what are they?

And here is the most important part. If women don't perform those duties, is it perfectly acceptable to degrade them and call them 'not a real woman' like men often get degraded and are called 'not a real man' when they don't pay?

Posted by: Chad at December 12, 2007 2:26 PM

Amy,

See this is what I expected. Nor am I a tight walleted tight wad as I now realize I may appear to be on this blog. Obviously every situation is different and each one requires finnesse.

I do separate out dating from other walks of life. Treating a little sister or an assistant to me is in a totally different realm and is perfectly reasonable. But dating is distinct.

The difference between you and a lot of women is that you will do things like alternate paying for dates or offering to buy a post bliss breakfast. The difficulty for men is determining which ones are of that mindset and which women are not. To me "splitting the bill" does not mean I'm going to meter out what you ordered vs. what I ordered. But it may mean I'll say, hey I'll pick up dinner and why don't you get the movie tickets?

As per the confusing comment above, KG had said: "I always pay for every date with men I just want to fuck. It puts them in their place and creates an environment of a little less talk and a lot more action." My two point was that this is a ridiculously sexist thing to say and if a man said such a thing he would rightly torn apart by your readers.

Posted by: flighty at December 12, 2007 2:31 PM

Thanks Chad. This was what I was circling around, but couldn't spit out.

Also, I know my grammar was atrocious in the previous post. In the beginning, should be replaced with I am not as tight wallated as I realize I may appear. And the last sentence should be "My point was that. . ."

Posted by: flighty at December 12, 2007 2:36 PM

So if it's the man's duty to pay for the date in the beginning, what is the woman's duty? Do women have duties at all in dating? If so, what are they?

It's not a duty -- it's a way a guy shows himself off as a good choice. A woman looks hot and doesn't eat her mashed potatoes with her fingers. And both people should be polite, interesting, and fun. Ideally.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 12, 2007 2:48 PM

http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/annies-mailbox.html?columnsName=ama

Here's the link - hope it works! This is actually relevant to the discussion, because I think the girlfriend is (as the boyfriend is beginning to suspect) only looking for the security and reliability of the white picket fence - a gold-digger, in other words.

I laughed at their advice - get her to a doctor! My ass. LOTS of relationships fizzle after that much time has passed. The spark is gone, the chemistry used up, and the love has turned platonic. If he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life with someone with whom he has no sex, he shouldn't have gotten engaged to her. She doesn't DIG him anymore! It happens all the time! She doesn't need to see a doctor for that! There are all these women out there who think the guy's hot, but he's so proud of himself for sticking by this frigid chick. Why?

I wondered what was going through her head, too. How does she feel about marrying someone she has no desire to sleep with? Does she ever wonder what it's going to be like when she meets someone who actually lights her up and turns her on, but oops - she is already married to Mr. Financially Secure? Is she afraid of being alone? Or have they spent so much time focusing on their "financial security" she has forgotten what love feels like? Maybe she is telling herself that this happens to all couples, eventually - that the way to prove to someone that you love them is to "stick it out." Not PUT it out, clearly. Ugh, another future divorce statistic.

But she must be a lesbian or have a medical problem? Gimme a freakin' break. She's JUST NOT INTERESTED!

Posted by: Pirate Jo at December 12, 2007 2:52 PM

"So if it's the man's duty to pay for the date in the beginning, what is the woman's duty? Do women have duties at all in dating? If so, what are they?"

Yes, we all have roles (duties seem so time-card). Did you read my earlier post about these roles? This might help:

"But, you will have the beautiful essence of my perfectly groomed self for you and everyone else to admire. Additionally, I will make it clear that I have eyes for no one else in the room but you. I will carry myself with a sexy classiness that will create eyes of envy everywhere we go. I will be flirty and genuine and great conversation, which will make you feel like such a MAN!"

And it's not the symbolism at all. It's about understanding the balance and being classy about it.

In truth, doesn't it feel good to be with a stunning, intelligent female who shows through her actions that she is completely in to you?

Women love to feel safe and secure with an interesting, strong man. If he is hot, then it is icing on the cake. But if he is crying about the bill, it's a huge disappointment. It's a tacky display of shielded weakness. And if I am the type of person who can pretty much have the pick of any litter, then it won't be the one complaining about new-age gender equalibrium.

And by the way, how do you know if her salary is comparable to yours? Do you ask first? Assume? Or won't you date a woman who doesn't make much money? And if she makes less than you, does she still have to split?

Posted by: kg at December 12, 2007 2:54 PM

Oh and I forgot:

"Lastly, how would you feel if the men you paid for that you "just want to fuck. because it puts them in their place and creates an environment of a little less talk and a lot more action" decided that after the date they didn't want to fuck at all. What if they still didn't want to fuck after the third date you paid for? Wouldn't you feel a little cheated?"

It's never happened. Not once. Not even a slight protest. Although, I do suck a mean dick. It might be my lips that give it away.

Posted by: kg at December 12, 2007 3:03 PM

Actually, Pirate Jo, I answered that one quite some time ago, here:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2006/09/groping_for_mor_1.html

Unfortunately, newspaper editors don't seem to give a shit who does actual research on a topic, only that they don't offend readers, which is best avoided by keeping readers in a state of partial sleep at all times.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 12, 2007 3:04 PM

Mentioned Basson's research again here:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2007/05/a_tale_of_naked.html

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 12, 2007 3:04 PM

Amy said:"It's not a duty -- it's a way a guy shows himself off as a good choice. A woman looks hot and doesn't eat her mashed potatoes with her fingers. And both people should be polite, interesting, and fun. Ideally."

'A woman looks hot'? So it's the dut..er the 'role' for the woman to be attractive on the date and to use good manners. Well the manners thing makes sense, but (and my agreement or lack of it with this notion notwithstanding) if the woman is expected to be attractive to the man on a date, then why is there such a movement out there today about how society's body image standards are harmful to our girls as they are growing up?

Shouldn't we instead be teaching them that they are supposed to look hot or they will not be getting dates, or is that not destructive to them? Just as men are told by their parents growing up that 'guys always pay for dates' why is that still acceptable yet 'girls, be pretty and attractive to men or you will never have the protection and security that comes with being with one'?

It seems like more of people (read: many women) wanting to have their cake and eat it too. I'm sorry, I simply do not agree.

Posted by: Chad at December 12, 2007 3:17 PM

So flighty, more power to you, but in my experience it just doesn't work tht way for most people. Gail has the jist of it; if the woman insists on paying or splitting the tab on the first date (assuming that the man asked), then that's a way of putting up a barrier to romance. Or, more to the point, she does it because she can't wait a minute longer to get the hell out of there. After the first few dates, then the matter becomes more negotiable, particularly if the woman makes more than the man.

I can't find now who asked about what the woman's obligations are on a first date, but I'd say it goes like this:

1. Show up. Standing someone up on a first date is one of the cruelest things you can do. If you didn't want to go out with the guy, you should not have accepted in the first place.
2. Be reasonably good company. That doesn't mean you have to plaster on a smiley face. Just be willing to interact. You can talk about how things are going for you even if it's not so great; just don't get melodramatic. (And please... unless you are both doctors, no medical discussions over dinner!)
3. Don't abuse the privilege. A first date, when you know the man is going to be paying, is not the time to insist on a $150 bottle of wine.
4. Leave the freakin' cell phone at home! Okay, okay, if you have kids, you may need it so the babysitter can call just in case. If so, set it on vibrate and screen the calls; don't answer unless you know it's an emergency call.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at December 12, 2007 3:19 PM

...meant to say "..is no longer acceptable in society today" after my 3rd paragraph. No darn edit feature :)

Posted by: Chad at December 12, 2007 3:19 PM

Oh, and about the bathroom issue... there isn't a woman in the world who can hold out for more than 15 minutes after consuming liquids. So it's inevitable. That's why I don't worry about women taking over the world. If they try, I'll just give them all a glass of wine, and then while they're all in the bathroom, I'll barricade the door! (And if any try to break through, I'll yell, "Don't come out, I'm killing a spider!")

Posted by: Cousin Dave at December 12, 2007 3:22 PM

if the woman is expected to be attractive to the man on a date, then why is there such a movement out there today about how society's body image standards are harmful to our girls as they are growing up?

Look, I get fired every time I write a column that says men don't like fat women (except for a few guys who are chubby chasers, and then some men can't get the women considered the tops in attractiveness, just as some women can't get the alpha males of industry [or poetry, as the case may be]).

Feminism puts out a lot of damaging stuff, and the notion promoted to girls that men "should" like you for what's inside is five cartloads of horse shit.

Today, my friend Tom saw me in the Bella Dahl skinny jeans I got off eBay and told me I looked "smokin' hot." I ordered another pair immediately. Male sexuality is very visual, and if you want to get a man, and keep him, you'd better keep those big, baggy sweatsuits in the rag drawer.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 12, 2007 3:22 PM

Cousin Dave said:

"1. Show up. Standing someone up on a first date is one of the cruelest things you can do. If you didn't want to go out with the guy, you should not have accepted in the first place.
2. Be reasonably good company. That doesn't mean you have to plaster on a smiley face. Just be willing to interact. You can talk about how things are going for you even if it's not so great; just don't get melodramatic. (And please... unless you are both doctors, no medical discussions over dinner!)
3. Don't abuse the privilege. A first date, when you know the man is going to be paying, is not the time to insist on a $150 bottle of wine.
4. Leave the freakin' cell phone at home! Okay, okay, if you have kids, you may need it so the babysitter can call just in case. If so, set it on vibrate and screen the calls; don't answer unless you know it's an emergency call."

Are you completely kidding me?

These are all things that I would completely expect the man to follow as well. These are all common sense things and hardly belong in the same discussion about who pays for a date. Seriously.

That's like saying in exchange for getting a free ride in an airplane, please make sure you don't piss on the pilot's face.

Posted by: Chad at December 12, 2007 3:22 PM

"My two point was that this is a ridiculously sexist thing to say and if a man said such a thing he would rightly torn apart by your readers."

If I engage in a sexual situation in which I honestly express a desire for only physical attraction without committment, why would I be "rightly torn apart"?

Would it be better to pretend to want a love relationship when I know I cannot commit to something like that right now?

I think doing that would be mean-spirited; and, I don't like to hurt people. Much.

Posted by: kg at December 12, 2007 3:23 PM

Amy said: "Look, I get fired every time I write a column that says men don't like fat women"

That pretty much says it all, right there.

Yeah. A lot of feminism *is* very damaging. Just like that line I quoted from you. I consider that a very sad reality but a reality nonetheless.

Posted by: Chad at December 12, 2007 3:26 PM

Y'all feel free to request me back at the Ithaca Journal, where I got fired for my fat women metaphor -- "A guy doesn't buy a sports car expecting it to morph into a cargo van" -- after feminists complained.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 12, 2007 3:36 PM

See, Cousin Dave knows his stuff...humor and all! That's what it's all about...right here in black and white and poor chad and flighty are still pissed. I'd take the light-hearted, funny dude not whining about $30 bucks over the penny-pinching femimales in a minute. Even on a blog.

And why do you assume being hot means being unhealthy? I run three miles a few times a week and am in good shape, but my ass is so big I will never fit in anything less than a 10, nor do I want to. As a kid, I hated my shape, but guys seemed to appreciate my curves. That is what helped me learn to love my shape, not some diatribe about equality and shit.

Posted by: kg at December 12, 2007 3:53 PM

Fat doesn't necessarily mean unhealthy (I'm assuming you mean "fat" not "hot" above), and I never said so, but fat often means unhealthy.

What I'm talking about is optimums for mating/dating.

I'm the frugal one in our relationship, and it's Gregg spending the money, but you know, I can always count on him to do the classy thing (over cheaping out). We went to Matt Welch's book party and Gregg bought a book (even though Matt had sent me one which I told Gregg I'd lend him to read).

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 12, 2007 4:05 PM

KG: I said if you were a GUY you'd be torn apart for saying what you said.

What if a guy said to you: Well I paid for the date. Now, shut up and let's get go have sex.

Imagine what the feminists would do to amy if she tried to print that.

Posted by: flighty at December 12, 2007 5:46 PM

lol - try dating as a single dad. It sucks. Picking up the tab for our mob at Chuck E Cheese seems to be the best I can do. Recently had a date at a sandwich shop - probably the best date I've had in a while, mostly because we spent the next 2 hours between our cars chatting in the parking lot, until it was dark and we absolutely had to leave to pick up our respective sets of kids. (holy shit, I'm going to be Mr Brady...)

I do better at cooking. Hell, if LG is willing to exchange a home grilled porterhouse and a movie snuggled on the couch, I'll happily roll out a handmade lazagne, and a desert that will make you swoon. I've worked in enough restaraunts that I can cook just about anything.

I dunno about the rules. When I was a Single Dude, I picked up the tab. I'm not THAT old, but I really didn't think it was done differently. I do know that I wasn't entitled to diddly on the date, aside from someone's company for as long as I was charming and decent.

I considered a first date an interview, and yes, the competition from your fellow men is fierce for people who are worth it. The evening is your resume, your internship for how you're going to be as a man in the future. It's not fair, or equitable, but it is what it is. At least, you get to pick where to go. Someone worth spending time with is worth the investment in a dinner or some other activity. You're asking THEM to take time out of their day to spend time with you. Yep, a little bribery is in order. This can be your (only) chance to say, with deeds more than words, that you think your companion is someone special.

My problem isn't so much with paying for a date, it's getting up the nerve to ask in the first place.

I know the original poster is griping more about the aparent two faced nature of modern feminism. There's a lot of two-faced crap about feminist 'policy', and it's best to stay away from the problem in the first place. Trust me, anyone that isn't paying the check to speed up dragging you out to her place is probably doing it do get the hell out of your company in general.

As KG has put it, the other side of the deal is that someone reserves their Friday or Saturday for you, gets dressed up, and does their level best to be decent company, flirt with you, and LETS you do all the cheesy, chivalrous guy things like open doors, pull out chairs, offer your jacket, and fuss over them for a bit. It's a fun dance, if you can relax and go with it.

Some Brit anthropologist did a pretty major piece on human courtship. (The Human Animal) Basically, and oversimplified - people who are couring treat each other like babies, and its to show how well you'll be as a mate and a parent. Babies take a LOT of attention to keep them happy. Now is not the time to show that you're a pouty brat with a short attention span.

All that being said, if I had realized my ex felt that she was entitled to an lifelong irresponsible paris hilton lifestyle above and well beyond my means, I would have yelled "check please" a lot earlier. She's cute, and given the number of people willing to pay her way through life, is really one of those people who think she's genuinely entitled to it.

Posted by: Wayne at December 12, 2007 6:36 PM

Y'all feel free to request me back at the Ithaca Journal, where I got fired for my fat women metaphor -- "A guy doesn't buy a sports car expecting it to morph into a cargo van" -- after feminists complained.

I'd of added ".... or a clown car."

Posted by: Wayne at December 12, 2007 6:40 PM

I agree with flighty and Chad - fair is fair! I am a woman, and I always offer to split the check, first date included. And, I definitely do not think less of a guy that would prefer to split the check, as long as he is attentive, interesting, genuine, personable, etc.; in fact, I view it as a positive sign that he values equality, and sees me as an equal.

Alternatively, if he still insists on paying for us both despite my offer to go dutch, (and assuming we have chemistry), I would accept graciously, and flirtatiously say something like "but only if I get to treat you next time!" Problem solved!

Either way, I think flighty had it right when he said if there is attraction/chemistry/etc., it won't be diminished by splitting the bill. And if it is, you may not want that kind of girl! Even IF there *is* some sort of biological drive for women to seek a provider, I assume we can all be *logical* and realize that whether a man pays on a first date is *not* even close to an accurate proxy for whether he will want to commit/provide in the future. Guys looking for a one night stand often offer to pay too! A man's wallet is definitely not an indicator of his character...and traits like respect, interesting personality, positive attitude (or whatever other substantive traits you find important in a guy) are ultimately what is important if you want a successful relationship.

That said, date according to your beliefs - if you prefer a traditional guy/girl, act accordingly, and you will likely attract a more traditional guy/gal. Alternatively, if you are egalitarian, then act accordingly, and you will likely attract dates who share those values. When it comes down to it, I think dating is all about compatibility anyway.

Posted by: Alexa at December 12, 2007 9:10 PM

Flighty and Chad -- you may not agree, and you may not like it, but the fact is, it's the set of rules under which 99% of our dating world is operating. If you act under a different set of rules than 99% of the world, your love life is going to suffer. For example, I thought I was being nice and considerate by offering to pay half the check, but without realizing it, I was sending a signal to 99% of my dates that I wasn't into them. Since 99% of the nice guys out there think they should pick up a check on the first date, the 1% who weren't getting that signal were often shmoes. (Maybe this explains why until I reached my 30's and learned my lesson on this one, most of my actual relationships started as friendships, and didn't grow out of dates? Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course, but it does limit your options. And of the relationships that started as dates -- the guys all refused to let me pay half on the first date. Coincidence? I think not.) Similarly, when you insist a woman pay half or get pouty when she doesn't, you're sending 99% of the women you're dating a clear signal that you're not that into her, or that you're kind of a jerk. That's true even if she's a nice chick like me who doesn't give a crap about your wallet and is going to try to pick up the check the second time out. It's just the way it is. Sure, maybe you'll meet some fabulous person in that 1% who thinks exactly the way you do, but you've really diminished your dating odds. And sure, you can try to change the world one date at a time, but odds are good your dating life isn't going to be great.

When a guy asks a woman out, and pays her way, he's sending a signal that he's into her romantically and not just trying to be another one of her beer buddies/work colleagues etc. Actually, a couple of times it was only when the check came that I became certain that the guy wanted the evening to be a date! And if I let him pay, and put on a top with some cleavage instead of my turtleneck, I'm sending him a signal that I want it to be a date. Think of it as putting on a suit for an interview, even if you would wear office casual on a daily basis. Like work interviews, dating is a game just at first, which can be fun if you relax and enjoy it. But don't start thinking you can act, from the first minute, exactly as you would 2 years into a relationship. That doesn't work any better in a dating context than it does in a job context.

Posted by: Gail at December 12, 2007 9:27 PM

I've never been a big one for actual dates, but on the occasions when these happened, it was usually a matter of whoever had the money paid. Back when I was a young pretty boy, it was commonly the women who paid. The whole sex, drugs and acting or playing in a band routine, didn't do much for the pocket book. Usually I just picked up girls at gigs I played and fucked, so it really wasn't often an issue.

On the married scene, my partner and I have the perfect system. I make the money, give it to her and she gives me spending money, if there is enough for it. The bills get paid, money goes into the tax account, money goes into the account intended for our soon to be HSA, money goes into our downpayment savings. After all that, she gets some spending money and then, if anythings left, I get some too. The assumption is, that I really don't have the time to actually spend money and we really don't have a hell of a lot extra.

Our tax account gives us Christmas and b-days, I put in a third, pay quarterly and whats left now, covers the holidays. Our oldest's birthday is in January and his brother is arriving tomorrow, via a scheduled c-section (panic and scream, panic and scream).

The system we use, means that I'm lucky if I have forty bones for the week, but like many things in our lives, it works for us. We also each carry an emergency debit card, that is only good for a hundred dollars. They don't cost anything to have (except a ten dollar fee to initialize) but have huge service charges to use them - great for folks with poor impulse control (like me).

Did I mention my second child's coming tomorrow?

Posted by: DuWayne at December 12, 2007 9:44 PM

DuWayne, congratulations on the new baby! Out of curiousity -- how did you meet your wife? Did you go on a date, or was she...er...someone you met through the band? Who paid first time out?

I am absolutely in agreement that a relationship should be equal. Partners should pull their weight, financially and otherwise. If one makes less, maybe he/she makes up for it in other ways (cooking or whatever). Sounds like DuWayne and his wife have a fine arrangement. It's really only the first date or so we're talking about. My previous boyfriend made a lot less money than me, but he still took care of the first date. We went for Ethiopian -- inexpensive but fun, and romantic without being over the top. I knew he dug me, he knew I wasn't a princess. I never went dutch with him -- either he'd grab a check or I did (somehow more romantic that way) -- but after the first date it was more or less even. And that's just the way it should work. We're still friendly, by the way, and I meet up with him every once in a while -- but now we go dutch!

Posted by: Gail at December 12, 2007 10:07 PM

My job: man up and ask for a date. Show up clean, shaved, sober, randy and cash-laden. Pick up the check for dinner, drinks, entertainment, and transportation.

Her job: Show up clean, shaved (or trimmed into a nice landing strip), sober, randy, wearing a Wonderbra.

If all goes well and I do my part, I often receive cards and/or flowers the following Monday --- and her own insistence that she picks up the check the following Saturday.

After that, work it out by frequency or income ratios, take your pick.

WTF guys, if your girl isn't inspired to take you out on the town now and then, you need to do your tongue exercises.

Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 12, 2007 11:25 PM

Amy, while I usually agree with your perspective, I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you on this one.

The reason is simply that while your argument that women expect investment from a potential mate due to the possibility of a biological burden is accurate... the fact remains that we as men and women have managed to overcome many other evolutionary constraints, so you have some more work to do to justify why this particular evolutionary constraint is insurmountable.

Sure... back in the medieval ages it was important for a woman to get a man to invest in her and show her he was going to stick around because if she got pregnant she was going to have to tough it out whether or not the guy stayed around to help raise the child.

This isn't the case anymore... that biological burden is the woman's choice, she can terminate the burden if she so chooses, this is just one of the evolutionary constraints that we've managed to overcome... hence the whole rationale for why investment in her was a crucial first step has been obviated by the advancement of science.

Sure, it's difficult to overcome millions of years of evolutionary history... but you know what, men and women also aren't evolved to sit at a computer and type up business reports, work out the solutions to differential equations, or type up advice columns.

Somehow we've managed to adapt to situations that science and technology made possible and it doesn't appear as if it's caused smoke to fly out of peoples ears... somehow they've managed to cope, and quite admirably I might add.

Maybe from your perspective it makes sense for the guy to just "deal with it"... but from my experience, for every woman who feels it is absolutely necessary for a man to do all the investing in her while she waits to see if he is worth while to invest in as well... there are two more women willing to invest equally and take similar risks at the beginning, hoping that things might work out, and to me those are the women I'd much rather spend my time with. Because from equal investment comes an equal desire to make things work. When only one party has invested, the one who has invested nothing has a much lower incentive to actually be an interesting date.

You have every right to only date men who will do all the risky monetary investing in you while you wait and see if they deserve any monetary investment from you in return... but just as men who desire women who will invest equally tend to limit their dating pool... so does anyone who views it as an evolutionary requirement that men do all the upfront investing.

So far as I am concerned that whole evolution argument is nonsensical unless you are advocating that we as society return to a system more akin to our evolutionary past... but I'm not sure many women would relish the idea of returning to a hunter/gatherer system just so they can have the men offer them a fresh kill to prove their worth as a mate.

Posted by: Jason at December 12, 2007 11:33 PM

Using the basic nature argument is fine, but it cuts both ways:
If the man is to provide the food (finances, fun, car...), then the woman is to provide copious amounts of high quality porno style sex. She should not have 20 extra pounds and demand that everyone pretend that she looks great in hip-huggers and a half-shirt. She should not refuse to shave anything, claiming that aforementioned "equality". High heels? Check. Short skirts? Check. Princess in public, absolute you-know-what in the bedroom? Check.

Oh wait, that's shallow of me. I guess I have to apologize now, even though no woman will ever apologize for using earning power or willingness to buy gifts as a criteria for men.

If women want to pretend to be equal in every way to a man, then she can act like it consistantly. If a woman wishes to act like and be treated like a lady, then she should be treated like it.

Guys are sick of seeing incompetent women get free rides in college (sexist scholarships), a legup at work (official or unofficial affirmatice action), and a presumption that they are equal to men in every way (a guy can get fired for saying the opposite out loud).

THEN they create a work environment where a guy always has to be worried about offending someone, afraid of correcting a female lest she claim sexism, a dating scene where she acts like life is a carnival and it is your job to buy all the tickets, even if you get stuck with a bunch of them because she changed her mind. Don't even talk about divorce. How is it that women are equal in every way, but they are assumed to be the helpless victim of an abusing, domineering man the moment they get to divorce court?

Here is the answer, and it doesn't involve "Men's Power" websites. Do like I did, visit Russia and Ukraine. Find a educated, capable woman who thinks keeping a good man is just as important as finding him. Let the hypocrite money grubbers with their overinflated sense of importance complain when they are 35 and worn out about how they can't find a good man.

Posted by: Not Suffering at December 13, 2007 5:40 AM

Its been said before by others here - if your date is hiding in the bathroom to avoid paying she's cheap, and has absolutely zero class. Maybe the LW should start asking out women based on something other than their looks. Start with a coffee or two, or a walk, and see if she has any personal integrity. I do believe that whoever asks for the first date pays for the first date. After the first time it should be roughly even - you buy movie tickets, he gets the popcorn and soda. For the LW - if by your third meeting she hasn't even offered to cover the coffee it should ring a little warning bill in your head - enough to at least have a conversation about it. Maybe she's totally broke. Maybe she's dated some of those men that take it as a personal affront when the woman offers to pay.

Speaking personally I'm fortunate enough to hold down a fairly well-paying job, own my condo and truck, and have tucked away a healthy and growing nest egg. One day I hope to meet a man I love, and if we marry it will because we love each other and are each others best friends. I don't ever want to be in the position of marrying because I have to for financial reasons, and what a man drives or how much money he makes doesn't interest me.

Good luck LW.

Posted by: orbit at December 13, 2007 5:57 AM

No, Amy, I meant hot not fat. I agree with you totally about the car metaphor. People tell me how "lucky" or "blessed" I am to be in such good shape at 36. I say, "luck hell! I work hard at this." But I was actually responding to Chad when he said made this comment:

"if the woman is expected to be attractive to the man on a date, then why is there such a movement out there today about how society's body image standards are harmful to our girls as they are growing up?"

He had mentioned all that about unhealthy body images blah, blah, blah. My point was just because a girl is hot doesn't mean she is a stick figure or unhealthy. I am not fat but I have a fat ass, and I always will no matter what my weight. Many dudes find this smokin' hot. I also have a friend who is full-figured, but she has that hour glass look with it and has no problem in the dating department.

Wayne,
You hit the nail on the head about the whole dating thing. I have a lot of children and I don't want to be in a relationship. I want to raise my kids and be with them right now. Plus, I personally don't think it is fair to bring people in (and out) of their lives when I know I have no plans on committing for any length of time. I am, however, in my sexual prime and don't plan to waste the moment.

But, when I do get back in the dating game, I will not date more than once a dude who does not pay for the first date. For those guys who feel differently, you will have a small ring of chicks like Alexa who will be impressed by halfsies. Most won't. And the reason is because of what "Not Suffering" says. What a nasty mound of festering cancerous company. These are the types who like to float in your boat. These are the types I avoid. Life is too short to be so petty and annoying.

"Princess in public, absolute you-know-what in the bedroom? Check."

Oh, come on... you can write the word....Mr. Not Suffering.

Posted by: kg at December 13, 2007 6:40 AM

Listen up boys you don't want to be the nice guy that pays for everything. While you are paying for dinner she is in the powder room calling up the guy she will be having sex with later. That's the guy that does not pay for anything. He is the one that knocks her up while nice guy pays the child support. That's the way things have always been. This is nothing new. Let some other sucker be the nice guy.

Posted by: cybro at December 13, 2007 7:34 AM

Cybro wrote:

"That's the way things have always been."

What kind of people do you choose to hang around?

Loser.

Posted by: kg at December 13, 2007 7:42 AM

The reason is simply that while your argument that women expect investment from a potential mate due to the possibility of a biological burden is accurate... the fact remains that we as men and women have managed to overcome many other evolutionary constraints, so you have some more work to do to justify why this particular evolutionary constraint is insurmountable.

No, we haven't, which is why men still want beautiful women, not just women with great personalities (even though, with modern medicine, just about anybody can put out a healthy child that survives). Evolutionary hard-wiring didn't go away because Gloria Steinem put on a pair of bunny ears.

Gail is right. I've always been willing to pay my way. It's partly why I don't get married, and have never wanted to get married, despite the fact that I couldn't imagine being without Gregg. I'm self-supporting, and want to be with a person only because I'm into them, not because I don't want to lose the house, their income, etc.

That said, I learned in my 20s that paying on a date was not a good idea. It sends the wrong message to a guy. After you start actually dating somebody, I feel differently. When I had a boyfriend who made less money than I did, I always engineered it so I'd pick up the check when we went someplace more expensive. It's just the classy thing to do.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 13, 2007 8:05 AM

The biological argument makes sense in response to male viewing women (hip ratio is a good aproximation to fertility)

The biological cues your talking about for women viewing men as provider has a lot more to do with dominant male body language (good posture, broad shoulders) combined with a strong confident attitude that comes across in speaking (preferably with a deep voice) and movement.

Paying for a date is a social custom, just as paying a bridewealth with cattle was a social custom. It is not biologically linked to being a provider. If it was biological than any guy could pay for a date (or buy drinks at a bar) and been seen in the same way a man sees a hot woman.

Posted by: flighty at December 13, 2007 8:35 AM

"No, we haven't, which is why men still want beautiful women, not just women with great personalities (even though, with modern medicine, just about anybody can put out a healthy child that survives). Evolutionary hard-wiring didn't go away because Gloria Steinem put on a pair of bunny ears."

Amy... from a purely evolutionary perspective men don't just want beautiful women... they want young fertile women. From a purely biological standpoint there would not be anything unnatural about a 25 year old man having children with a 15 year old girl. In fact things like that used to happen all the time until we got to the modern era (as in the past 200 years). We have since decided that it is a reprehensible practice and not only made it illegal, but one of the more sinister crimes that can be committed.

If we can somehow circumvent that evolutionary hard-wiring in this case, overcoming millions of years of evolution that drove men to want to mate with young and fertile women in preference of slightly older women... then certainly we can overcome the evolutionary hard-wiring for a woman to invest nothing in a man until after he's shown her that he's worth it.

I know you believe that we haven't overcome anything... but the truth is that we have, and some of the things we've overcome are very strong biological instincts. We have overcome them because as intelligent rational beings we realize that just because something is a biological urge does not make it the right way to behave.

If you are suggesting that women are absolutely incapable of overcomming their biological urge to have a man support them early in the relationship, then I have to wonder how it was that society in general has accepted the fact that it is wrong for an adult to have sexual relations with a 16 year old... go back several million years and that was pretty much par for the course.

Society managed to change that hard-wired response... society can change this one too since it is an anachronism at this point.

Posted by: Jason at December 13, 2007 9:00 AM

to add to Jason's point, we're not too far removed from men being expected to pay for EVERYTHING on EVERY date. But most women no longer expect nor desire that.

Posted by: flighty at December 13, 2007 9:10 AM

You are missing the point, Jason. It is not that women are absolutely incapable of overcoming their biological....It's that all important instinctual attraction. Can women be attracted to people who are tacky? Yes. Are men of today attracted to 16 year old girls. Yes. Can they biologically avoid fucking jailbait? Most can. But, there is still an attraction. There is nothing illegal about finding guys who don't pay on the first date cheap.

Think about the TYPE of person that attracts you instantly? Tall? short? blonde? dark? thin? thick? Where do these basic attractions come from do you think?

If you were on your dream date...maybe even someone famous....would you initiate halfsies?

Posted by: kg at December 13, 2007 9:19 AM

I asked my husband out on our first date, and I paid. He was impressed that I didn't expect him to pay. We were married two years later. He now supports me and my four children while I complete grad school. When I'm working (soon), my income will be his as well. He had no qualms about opening a joint checking account, and I've returned the favor by not spending frivolously.

Posted by: sfm at December 13, 2007 9:25 AM

Amy... from a purely evolutionary perspective men don't just want beautiful women... they want young fertile women.

Sigh. What we consider beauty is indicative of fertility. Didn't I say this above? And about 1,000 times previously?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 13, 2007 9:31 AM

We have overcome them because as intelligent rational beings we realize that just because something is a biological urge does not make it the right way to behave.

Jason, we have evolutionary hard wiring for morality, too. You would have been thrown out of the tribe for anti-social behavior, which would likely have meant death back when we were wandering around Africa.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 13, 2007 9:34 AM

"Think about the TYPE of person that attracts you instantly? Tall? short? blonde? dark? thin? thick? Where do these basic attractions come from do you think?

If you were on your dream date...maybe even someone famous....would you initiate halfsies?"

Here is the truth of the matter... I wouldn't have to initiate halfsies on my dream date... she would already recognize it as a mutual investment. She would understand that the first date was about the two of us getting to know eachother a little better and that if she was just as interested in me as I was in her, then it doesn't make sense for only one of us to invest in the time we spend together.

I don't know about other men, but the kind of woman I want is a risk taker... I don't want the kind of woman that is constantly playing it safe... and ultimately I want the kind of woman who is willing to take a risk on me, just as I would be taking a risk on her.

I've been on dates like that before, and I have always been thoroughally impressed by the women who behave that way... those are the women who I call again for second dates.

The type of woman who expects me to do all the investing while she plays it safe and debates in her mind whether or not the next date will be the one where she invests anything beyond her time is exactly the kind of woman I won't be calling for a second date. Sure I'll pay, I'll even be nice about it and would never even mention to her my dissapointment... but she's really unlikely to hear from me again, and even less likely to know why she isn't hearing from me.

Believe me, I understand the instinctual attraction argument that you and others here are making. The fact remains however that as rational beings we are not slaves to our instincts... just because a 25 year old man is physically attracted to the 16 year old girl running down the beach in a bikini doesn't mean he has to act on those instincts and pursue her. He is and should be capable of telling himself "she is off limits"... just as women should be able to say to themselves "you know what, this guy's worth investing in to see if he's a keeper", which is exactly what men have been doing since the dawn of time. This whole "let me first find out if he's a keeper, then I will invest" strategy is outdated.

Way back in our evvolutionary past it made perfect sense for men to do all the risky investing, that time is gone now so far as I am concerned, and my dream date would recognize that as well... and that doesn't make either of us tacky any more than the guy who tells himself that the young scantally clad girl is off limits is impotent. It's about self control and being in charge of who you are and not letting instinct dictate everything you do. Maybe I'm an ideallist... but when playing the mating game, no one is required to settle.

Posted by: Jason at December 13, 2007 9:48 AM

Chad & flighty -- maybe its just me, but reading through this, I get the feeling you're missing an important distinction. When asking what the woman's role is if its the man's role to pay for that first date, you were answered that its her job to look hot, etc. You immediately responded that you'd get jumped all over for suggesting you didn't just have to accept a woman the way she was and that it was the same as having your cake and eating it too.

And that's the distinction it seems you're missing.

While Amy may get fired for stating her belief that women shouldn't get fat and not get fired for stating that men should have to pay, you can't suggest that she is inconsistent in her thinking and advice nor that she changes her opinion as a result.

She (& many others...just not the feminist lobby) believe that men should pay AND women shouldn't get fat, and aren't going to bitch if you say either.

If Amy suggested you should just accept your date in sweats and a t-shirt but always pay for the first date, you'd have a valid argument.

You're fight is with the feminist lobby....and you're (generally) not going to find it here. Equal pay for equal work and a few other common sense bits but no whining about how women are identical to men. We're not. Now perhaps you'd like to live in that "we're all totally equal" world, but I don't think it exists, nor do I believe it can without a few more million years of evolution. Now as long as you only date women who believe it does/should, you'll do just fine....of course, they'll be the ones with unshaved pits in baggy pants and an ill-fitting t-shirt that says "You can have your rib back." Enjoy!

Stick around and see what a REAL woman is all about.

Posted by: moreta at December 13, 2007 9:50 AM

"Jason, we have evolutionary hard wiring for morality, too. You would have been thrown out of the tribe for anti-social behavior, which would likely have meant death back when we were wandering around Africa."

Amy... then all we have to do is make it a moral imperative to behave in a fair and equitable fashion. Problem solved :)

Posted by: Jason at December 13, 2007 9:51 AM

Will we also put out a directive that men should be attracted to ugly women?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 13, 2007 9:53 AM

Speaking from the school of hard knocks wherein I learned the dating world is not equal; frankly, beware the LW. Speaking from harsh experience, guys that make this big a mountain over the molehill cost of a date are looking for a meal ticket, plain and simple. You'll start out paying "half" and wind up with them leaving their wallet at home. Run, do not walk, to the nearest exit. The last thing in hell you want to do is get in a LTR with them where in the name of "I respect your mind" they'll be tapping your bank account.

Please note there is a difference between gentleman and chauvinist and a gentleman is one who respects a woman enough to put her at ease such as the ones here who explain why they expect to do the asking and the paying for the first date or two. After you have found a mutual attraction also contains a certain rapport and continue seeing each other, then you can work out those pesky details with however is most comfortable to the two of you. And since no two people are the same, no two couples will be. That's why they call it a relationship, you relate to each other as inviduals.

Please also note that if someone asks you out with the attitude of, "Gee, I'd really like to see you but I don't want to invest my money as well as my time, you know, just in case it doesn't work out" what we ladies are going to hear is "I don't really know if you're worth it; prove you are" and we aren't going to bother because, well, it's just not worth it. Buh-bye.

Posted by: Donna at December 13, 2007 9:56 AM