Columns

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.

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

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.

Thanks, A.R.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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!

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.)

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.

"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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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."

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.

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

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.

--
phunctor

"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.

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.

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.

See Gail's post above and romantic interest indication.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

"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.

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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. . ."

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.

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!

"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?

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.

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.

Mentioned Basson's research again here:

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

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.

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.

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

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!")

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cybro wrote:

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

What kind of people do you choose to hang around?

Loser.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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.

"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 :)

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

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.

Moreta: I never once claimed that it was a woman's job to be hot on a date. It the responsibility of both parties to look and be their best.

Amy: You say that its man's job to pay for a date because it's biologically inclined and proves him as a provider. You yourself were clearly hot for your man before the first date and offered to pay for the first breakfast. If he had allowed you to pay, would you have decided you never would see him again because he was a bad provider?

Moreta:

I guess sfm and Alexa, aren't REAL women. According to you they must be scary ugly feminists. That must make Amy one too because she offered to pay for her man's first breakfast.

Sleeping with a man right away is a bad strategy if you're desperate for a boyfriend. I was not. I was looking for a boyfriend, but not desperate for one, as I was able to have sex (and did) without a boyfriend, and am not unhappy being alone. In short, I had sex right away, but was willing to suffer the likely consequences: that a guy is immediately disinterested in further contact.

I think some broad generalizations are being thrown around here - in my experience, I would not say that 99% of men are turned off by women offering to pay! And, if you really like the guy, and are concerned that he will interpret your offer as a sign of your disinterest, just mention that you enjoyed the date, had a great time, etc. so that he knows you like him and are just offering to be polite. If he's a quality guy, I can't imagine something like that being a deal breaker for him.

Also, I don't think it is true that all (or even most) women who offer to split the bill are frumpy and hairy! I don't mean to sound like a braggart here, but guys seem to be plenty satisfied by my appearance/style/etc. I'm not claiming that I look like a supermodel every second of the day, but I certainly put in the effort to dress to the occasion and look nice, because he is likely to appreciate that (in addition to my other more substantive qualities), and likewise, I appreciate him doing the same for me. And, for the record, I definitely *do* shave my pits! :)

But in the end, do what works for you, and you will likely attract someone compatible - I just don't think it is necessary to avoid an egalitarian approach based on a fear of severely limiting your dating options, as that has not been my experience.

Flighty, no one said Alexa et al. weren't "real women." Amy and I and others have said that we used to go dutch for first dates, and that we still believe that once you're involved, the woman should be pulling her weight -- and you can bet we always considered ourselves real women. The thing is, we realized that our good intentions were backfiring way too often. The role playing thing -- guy pays for first date, woman looks hot, etc. -- sets things up to be DIFFERENT FROM OUR FRIENDSHIPS AND WORK LIVES, for both the man and the woman. I can't stress enough how important that is. In her work life, a woman might be a hard ass boss. In her friendships, she's wearing a sweatshirt and paying for her beer. But that first date -- she's a woman being courted, and the guy, he's the masculine provider taking care of her. Phony role-playing, you say? For the sake of argument, let's say that's true. SO WHAT?! Since when is role-playing not sexy? I'm not a french maid, a nurse or a cheerleader, either, in real life, but play your cards right on the first couple of dates, and I might be one for an evening.

You keep taking women out, they don't "put out" after you shell out for dinner, and you never see them again? If this is happening again and again, one of three things is happening: (a) You are sending powerful signals over the table that you're expecting sex as payment for dinner--that's just a huge turnoff, even if you were attracted to the guy to begin with. (b) You are sending powerful signals over the table that you resent like hell paying for the date. HUGE turnoff. (c) You are choosing your dates badly. Instead of asking out women when you feel a mutual spark, you are choosing them SOLELY on the basis of hotness, or just asking out anything that moves. OR (d) you're acting like an ass in some other way (abusing the waiter, bragging, being condescending or overly argumentative).

You don't have to blow a wad! One of the worst dates I ever had spent $300 on dinner. He was abusive to the waiter and left a crappy tip. I actually did try to pay half the check here, because I knew after watching be obnoxious to the waiter that I wasn't going out with him again. He refused the offer (in a very condescending way, referring to his huge income), but I supplemented the tip. No one was more surprised than he was when I refused a second date. Some of the best dates have involved a glass of wine and a snack, or an inexpensive ethnic dinner, setting the guy back a grand total of $20 - $30. A good dates make me feel like a desirable, feminine hottie, and like he is genuinely interested in getting to know me better.

You know what, Jason? You remind me of a guy I went on a date with a while back. While I was driving to meet him he informed me we would be dining with his two friends and their wives. I almost went home. I should have. When he got the check, he looked up and in front of all of these people I just met asked me if I knew how much my glass of wine was. I guessed $7. He said $7.50. It was a pathetic moment for him. I knew I wouldn't go out with him again so I decided to go on back to his place and fuck his brains out. Yes, people evolve, but the hardwiring that Amy talks about is not as changeable as you make it seem. Have you ever tried to love someone you should love but just couldn't? Ever been "in love" too long with someone who wasn't worth it? Ever done that twice? Ever cheated on someone?

In my early 20s, I used to ask men out, too. Bad idea. And now three women and three guys will post that that's how they got together with their girlfriend/boyfriend/husband.

Again, there can be exceptions, but it's generally not a good idea. You want to know a man isn't too wimpy to ask you out, that's how men show their interest, and they tend to devalue you if they don't have to do anything to get you (if you just fall from the ceiling into their lap).

Gail: I don't think you and I disagree that much, but Moreta said "Stick around and see what a REAL woman is all about."

I completely agree with your second paragraph. You don't seem like the type of woman who would balk at the idea that if I get dinner you'll get the after dinner drinks. Nor does Amy. And that's really cool.

As a guy, though I do need to be able to filter which women are of your persuasion (roughly equal) and which expected to be treated like a princess. I agree that dates don't need to be expensive to be enjoyable, but while one $40 date isn't a big deal by date 3 you've already spent $120 or more on something that might not be going anywhere.

Plus as you've said the attraction doesn't come from paying for the meal. "A good dates make me feel like a desirable, feminine hottie, and like he is genuinely interested in getting to know me better." None of that is about money.

Wow. I'm just amazed.
How do you guys ever find a girl?
"Hi, let's go out, but in deference to your modernity and the tendency of employers to pay $0.77 for every dollar they would pay a male, may I suggest splitting the evening's costs exactly along those lines? Unless, of course, you make more or less. Could I see your tax return so we could calculate an equitable arrangement? Hey, where are you going? I was about to offer you an opportunity to bargain for a discount rate on my politically correct pro-feminist lovemaking skills!".

The plan is to fuck her stupid.
Alternatively, the plan is to fuck her, Stupid!

Try treating her like you WANT her and are willing to prove it. This is not the time for politics.

How do you guys ever find a girl?

Exactly the point I made in a followup question, to a guy who called me a feminazi. Note: If I haven't murdered all your relatives and shoved them into ovens, perhaps I'm just a chick who gives reality-based advice?

Taking into account the reality Gog gets into above.

LOL I don't think anybody wants to turn requesting a date into a detailed negotiation. Rather, I think these guys are just suggesting that it would be considerate and classy for the woman to offer (and actually be willing) to split the bill. That way, the man can choose whether or not he wishes to treat her, rather than ALWAYS being expected to foot the bill simply because he is a man.

And, of all the ways a guy could prove that he wants me, throwing around money is probably the least impressive one ... but maybe that is just me?

How a person is with money reflects their character.

You boys need to forget about what chicks say and start giving them what they really want. They love it when you treat them like dirt and when you give them a good smacking around. Do that and you will be scraping them off of you like dog poop.

That does work well on women with low self-esteem, except maybe for the smacking around thing.

Right, so if a woman offered to go dutch, wouldn't that be a sign of good character?

I certainly agree that an extreme penny-pincher of either gender who never wants treat the other, and divides the bill down to the last cent is unattractive.

That said, I don't think that is the issue here. I think it comes down to whether a guy should always have to pay solely because he is a guy. I would say no. I would also suggest that guys who object to always being expected to pay are not necessarily cheap. They may even be happy to pay on a first date as a nice gesture - they just believe that it should be a choice, rather than an obligation.

By the way. The last girl I dated paid for the movie tickets after I paid for dinner. This trend continued until we got married.

Just an FYI :)

I hear you - when my boyfriend and I went on our first date back in college, he paid for the movie tickets, and I bought the popcorn & sodas. He really seemed to appreciate it, and we've happily continued treating each other ever since.

So I guess it works for some of us, at least!

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

I've honestly got nothing against that. I don't remember who the song is by, but to a certain extent I don't believe it is terrible advice... I think the lyrics go something like "if you want to be happy for the rest of your life, better make an ugly woman your wife"... now that isn't to say that there are many women who are beautiful both on the inside and on the outside, but in terms of long term relationships, going by looks alone is very dangerous. The same goes for determining the value of a man as a long term partner by how much he spends on the first date.

If someone is just looking for a fling, then by all means base the entire appraisal on the size of the guys wallet and the size of the woman's chest.

There was a time (long before I was a single father) that I dated a number of single moms. (fact of life in your thirties and later). Single parents have it rough, usually, and they're tight on two things - time and money.

Hell Yeah I picked up the check. In addition to getting ready with a little one around the house, she managed to find and pay for a sitter, too. I usually asked at the end of dinner if she wanted to bring home a desert or other treat home to her kid(s). I was really appreciative (more so now, when I go through it), that she thought I was cool enough to go through all that trouble to spend a few hours with me.

Other times, dating involved me doing something I grouse at today - Stop for Carryout. (Some of the latest set of "Dumbass Dad" ads where the dude's all proud of himself for managing to bring home an f-ing pizza, really piss me off), but in this case, dinner's on me, the kids are comfortable being at home, and there's not a lot of pressure to get ready, find a sitter, making sure the sitter has the cell number and where we're going, get back home in time, etc. I spent a few evenings just talking over a bottle of wine, and cuddling on the couch later.

Inviting her and her mob over for dinner at my place is another 'cheap date', but again, there's plenty of work involved in getting ready and getting kiddos in the car, on her part. The bonus is that she's not stressing about how her place looks or what lingere she left hanging in the shower, and she gets to check out the bathroom to see if I know anything about basic sanitation.

Nowadays, tho, I'm discovering that people who are single at my age, are single FOR A REASON...

"You know what, Jason? You remind me of a guy I went on a date with a while back."

If that's the case it just goes to show you based upon the story you related that I am nothing like this guy you are talking about.

Here's the deal... I recognize that I'm a nice guy, I'm well educated, love to hold good conversations, and generally am able to keep peoples interest over the long term. I'd also wager that I'm not terrible to look at, and every women I've ever been in a serious relationship with would probably agree that I am a person of strong moral character.

That being said, I also recognize that I'm not just some guy who only has money to offer a potential date... in fact that is the absolute least I have to offer. If she is really only going to be interested in me based upon the amount of money I'm going to spend on her in the first hour we spend together, then frankly she just the type of woman I'm after.

Maybe there are some men out there who really only have a wallet to offer... and that is all they have in order to keep a woman interested. Similarly there are some women out there who only have a sexy body to offer... never having bothered to develop other more interesting traits. The fact is that I'm not one of those men... and I'm not interested in one of those women.

I realize that I'm probably in the minority with that stance, but so be it... it certainly limits who I am interested in dating, and who is interested in dating me... but ultimately, when it's all said and done, both I and the person I am dating are pleased with the quality of our company.

"I knew I wouldn't go out with him again so I decided to go on back to his place and fuck his brains out."

So according to you the guy was cheap, pathetic, and you wish you had gone home before even going on the date, yet after everything was finished you decided it would be a good idea to head home with him and have a night of wild sex?

Nothing about that story seems odd to you?

Basically you are saying that I remind you of some guy you wanted to have crazy sex with but never wanted to see again afterward... should I take that as a compliment or an insult?

"Have you ever tried to love someone you should love but just couldn't? Ever been "in love" too long with someone who wasn't worth it? Ever done that twice? Ever cheated on someone?"

I cannot speak for anyone else... but for me the answer to all of those questions is an emphatic no.

An important correction to my previous post:

"then frankly she just isn't the type of woman I'm after."

***"Have you ever tried to love someone you should love but just couldn't? Ever been "in love" too long with someone who wasn't worth it? Ever done that twice? Ever cheated on someone?"

I cannot speak for anyone else... but for me the answer to all of those questions is an emphatic no."***

And you may never find yourself in those situations. Getting into those situations requires a certain comfort with living in a gray area after the first date is long over.

That gray area may include, oh, incredible sex but no other compatibility whatsoever. Again and again and again until you've run through the Kama Sutra, the Joy of Sex, and every porn movie you can remember.

I'm a nice guy too, Jason. A good listener. Just as interested in compatibility as I'm interested in a tight trunk and oversized headlights.

But the fact is when you're the man and she's the woman, ya gotta be Tarzan with a wallet sometimes.

Tell her you're taking her out, tell her the level of dress you expect (casual, dressy casual, little black dress, formal), and DO NOT tell her the restaurant or the show for which you've bought tickets. Surprise her. Take charge of the situation. Bang her till she walks funny. She comes first, always.

Women usually drop their sexual politics when they drop their panties. They LIKE being treated like they're worth pursuing.

Men Pay does not apply to college students. This is romantic poverty time, deal with it as you must. You crazy kids. Here's twenty bucks for a pizza. Boff yourselves stupid.

Bang her till she walks funny. She comes first, always ... They LIKE being treated like they're worth pursuing.

Here's a guy who understands women. And has good relationships with them.

I don't believe in marriage because when it gets boring, I'm outta there. I don't "work on a relationship." If I wanted a job in the salt mines, I'd have one.

That said, Gregg and I have been together five years as of yesterday, and it has yet to feel like work. So, chances are, we'll still be together next week and next month, and so on. I don't value a relationship by it's tenure but by how good it is.

My husband and I met through the Army. I got a phone call about how he wanted to get to know me better. He made the first move and it definitely made a difference. I tried pursuing someone else first and he was really turned off by that.

"That gray area may include, oh, incredible sex but no other compatibility whatsoever. Again and again and again until you've run through the Kama Sutra, the Joy of Sex, and every porn movie you can remember."

As I said before... if all you're interested in the person for is a fling, then by all means make all the assessments of them based upon the size of their wallet, the horsepower of their car, the size of their breasts, how many years of gymnastics training they have, etc...

I'm not talking about flings though, and I feel that judging another persons long term potential on any of those factors is a really dangerous thing and tends to lead to the issues that I was asked if I ever encountered.

"But the fact is when you're the man and she's the woman, ya gotta be Tarzan with a wallet sometimes.

Tell her you're taking her out, tell her the level of dress you expect (casual, dressy casual, little black dress, formal), and DO NOT tell her the restaurant or the show for which you've bought tickets. Surprise her. Take charge of the situation. Bang her till she walks funny. She comes first, always."

Sure... "sometimes" is the operative word here... when you're in a serious relationship with someone it's of critical importance to take the reigns and set up all the arrangements and just let her enjoy the evening on occasion. Similarly, it is nice when a woman plans things out and allows her guy to just relax and enjoy himself. All of that is part of keeping the relationship exciting and romantic.

I'm not talking about the situation after you've been dating for a while... I am talking about a first date when everything is still in the tentative phase where both people are testing their compatibility.

I think you'd agree with me that if you just asked some women out on a date that you've never been romantically involved with before and told her exactly what to wear, told her you weren't going to tell her where you guys were going but intended to bang her until she walked funny afterward that you'd likely not get the date (and if you did is that the type of woman you'd want to be with long term?)... that is coming on way too strong for a first romantic encounter in my opinion.

Now after a few dates, that is the sort of approach that can be really exciting for a woman... because by then she's built up some level of comfort with you.

Most people I think like to know where their date is planning on taking them the first evening out together.

I am only talking about date number one here... for subsequent dates we can assume that things might rotate, but by then you both already have some idea if you are really interested in the other person... on the first date you are both still trying to figure that out, which is why I am advocating equal investment during the exploratory phase.

Also, please keep in mind that if I suspected that I had much more money than the woman I was dating, I would probably try and insist that I pay merely because to split things would require a larger investment from her on a percentage basis, and there is no need to burden her if I can more easily handle the expense.

Hopefully that helps clarify my position on the matter.

Yikes - I wouldn't say Gog understands women; partly because women (and men) are heterogeneous groups. There may be *some* women who go for that, but I know plenty who would prefer guys who think more like Jason.

Also, I'm not sure what college/post-college has to do with anything. Why should these "rules" should change at graduation - especially since they are gender-based? Are men who don't make a lot of money after college off the hook too? Or men who make less than their women? Seems pretty arbitrary.

Maybe there is some sort of "generation gap" at work here?

Alexa,

I was kind of thinking the same thing in terms of the generation gap. I'm in my late 20's and I am assuming that you are probably in the same realm, maybe early 30's. Gog and Amy are a little further along and hence probably have a different perspective due in part to the social beliefs that were prevalant while they were growing up.

I've actually spoken about these things with my mother and father before and believe they would be more inclined to agree with Gog and Amy's perspective (although the conversation would probably be more sedate, leaving out the whole "bang her until she walks funny" sort of talk lol).

The truth is that I've never really felt like my dating opportunities have been so drastically limited by having this perspective that if I wanted to date anyone I'd just have to suck it up and pay for everything until she was ready to contribute. Maybe if I couldn't find anyone who also felt as I did my perspective would be different, but it's really never come down to that.

As you said, it might just be a generational thing where the next generation is at least a little more comfortable with things like splitting the bill on a first date than the previous ones.

That being said, I don't feel comfortable speaking on behalf of my entire generation as I am just one voice amongst millions... but the generation gap is a good theory at least.

Wow, Amy, I'm flattered. Thanks, I will be unbearably self-assured for at least a week.

Anyway --- I'm not sure it's a generation gap so much as an experience gap.

I've been in a couple of three-year relationships that went through the gray area of "not sure we're in love but here we are". Not a fling, but not a marriage.

Eventually, we split up, but we didn't agonize much about who we are, where we are, where we're going, why we're going, if we're going, when we're going, ad nauseum. We enjoyed our monogamous fun until it was time to end it.

I've been in a decade-long marriage based on "this is it, I'm madly in love" (to the point where people were literally angry with jealousy, and I am not kidding you).

What I'm driving at with all this is that sometimes, the simplest approach is the best. People can agonize and over-analyze this until doomsday.

First date, man asks, man pays. It's simple, it's understood, it usually works.

Ongoing relationships, man steps up now and then and plays Tarzan (beat your chest, guys, not your girlfriend).

Likewise, now and then man backs off and lets woman drive. Let's not be boring.

As to the college situation, I'm referring to *most* students being flat-ass broke. In that case, splitting a pizza or trading movie matinees falls into the category of "we're young, broke, and in love/lust" --- making it work however you can. Same with being in your 20s and on your first professional but underpaying job.

Not so many rules as when you're making six figures and she's a junior woodchuck in the art department, you know?

Maybe it is a generational thing. I'm in my 20's as well.

"As you said, it might just be a generational thing where the next generation is at least a little more comfortable with things like splitting the bill on a first date than the previous ones."

Actually -- Amy and I both said that when we were in our 20's, we always offered to pick up half the check! I didn't start acting otherwise until I hit 30. 'Taint about us being born a decade or whatever it is earlier than you! I'm not traditional in most ways -- I was a corporate lawyer, now I'm starting a business. I'm a fairly hardcore runner and cyclist. I've picked up many a check. I've been the boss, I've had men working for me. I'm happy to date guys that make way less money than me if I think they're smart, cool and interesting, and I've dated guys a decade younger than me. I still throw on a backpack and go hiking in far- flung places on my own. I'm no 1950s throwback. This isn't "generational" -- it's more about experience. I had to be convinced to act otherwise by the combined voice of all of my male buddies! Seriously -- it's just worked better for me.

I'm not worried about giving off gold-digger vibes -- if anything, I have to be careful not to give off emasculating "I have more money than you and I bet I can run faster" vibes. Letting the guy ask me out, buy me some wine and cheese and open some doors for me while I wear a fragile little dress seems to go far in that direction!

For what it's worth, Flighty, if I like the guy, I offer to pick up the check on the next date unless the guy has made it clear that he really wants to pick it up (and some guys do). If I don't like him and know there's no way he's ever seeing me again, I'll insist on paying half on the first date. (And it sends exactly the signal I mean it to send.) And after more than 3 dates or so, if he still won't ever let me reciprocate in any way, I start weighing him carefully to consider whether, maybe, just maybe, he's a control freak rather than a gentleman -- just like you should start seriously wondering if she's a sponge if she's never offered to open her wallet by that point.

By the way, Flighty, Chad and Jason (I won't bother to address Cybro and Not Suffering, who are clearly trolls) -- we chicks with cash have to watch out for gold-digging dudes, too! I feel your pain. I recently had a 27 year old hottie aspiring actor in my cycling group sniffing around me, which I found intriguing until it became clear to me that he was looking for someone to finance his acting career (I like to think it helped that I'm in great shape and good-looking but I could tell that my bank account was his major interest). Gold-digging types give themselves away pretty quickly if you pay attention. If they spend too much time trying to figure out how much money you make, worry. Lots of questions about your car or real estate holdings? Red flags (unless she's a car buff or a realtor, of course). If she lights up like a Christmas tree when you say you're an investment banker (or looks glum when you say you're a high school teacher) -- run in the opposite direction as fast as you can. The 27-year-old actor hottie, for example, made lots of insinuations about how great it was that I could afford to leave my corporate job, how he admired successful women, and sighing about how great it would be if he could accompany me on some of my travels, while running his hand down my back and batting his eyelashes at me. And before you condemn me as unwilling to date guys who aren't rich, please note that my previous boyfriend worked for a not-for-profit and was living in a rented studio apartment. He was hot, really interesting, idealistic, smart and funny -- and he paid for the first date. (He also got sex on the first date, by the way, which is definitely not my usual habit -- as Amy noted, it usually backfires. It didn't do so here, and I could kinda tell it wouldn't.) Anyway, I think you can separate out most of the losers very early on (even before the first date) if you pay attention. Keep the first date low key and not too expensive, and pay attention to the vibes.

Man, I must of grown up in "The Land of the Lost". Is Chivalry really that bad? I was raised, by two good parents, that a gentleman pays for a date! This to me is a "NO BRAINER".

If a woman wants to pay / or split the bill, fine. But lets not try to define roles in a relationship by how is willing to pay for the Quarterpounders at McDoofs.

I think the idea of a date is to have chance to talk in a relaxed and neutral setting for both people, its not an interview. Yes, you are looking for common ground to talk about and search for common interests. But, to reduce to a cold analytical thing reduces the entire dating process. And lets face facts, dating is a process. Both parties tend to be uncomfortble on the first few dates. We are both unsure of where it is going to go, but I think both go into it with the hope that it is not just a free meal or an expensive waste of time.

I know I am a bit cynical, but my almost ex-wife and I are going thru a bit of a rough divorce.

Gog...you definitely know women! And Gail, you are right about gold-digger dudes, but they are pretty easy to spot. Sometimes I don't mind a gold-digger for a little while, and I suppose that is because I really don't want a relationship anyway. Gold-diggers will abide by all the rules without too much bitching.

And Jason, the point of the date story was that I went out with him because he interested me enough to agree on that type of date. After the whole wine fiasco, he just wasn't interesting to me like that anymore. So I fucked him. As other people have noted, often times people who choose to fuck on the first date are not the ones you will see again. It works both ways silly. If he wanted to have a more "serious" relationship, then maybe he shouldn't have been so easy.

I'd pair those aphids with a nice fruit-forward white, myself, but I always go for a red with dusty tanins with my male mantis-heads.

Gail - definitely didn't mean to pigeonhole you into a super-traditional stereotype or anything like that. In fact, you sound like a very interesting and accomplished woman!

I think the difference is that when I have discussed this issue with my male peers, most haven't suggested that I should alter my behavior and expect men to pay on the first date; rather, they seem to like the idea of a woman offering to split. So maybe it all comes down to younger men feeling more comfortable splitting than their predecessors?

I guess we will find out either way as time goes on.

"And Jason, the point of the date story was that I went out with him because he interested me enough to agree on that type of date. After the whole wine fiasco, he just wasn't interesting to me like that anymore. So I fucked him. As other people have noted, often times people who choose to fuck on the first date are not the ones you will see again. It works both ways silly. If he wanted to have a more "serious" relationship, then maybe he shouldn't have been so easy."

I'm sorry, but you indicated that you thought this fellow was a pathetic loser who you wished you had never even gone out with in the first place... then you went home with the guy and had a night of wild sex.

Based on that I'm left to assume that your method of selecting good partners is tragically flawed.

As many other people here have noted, they have had sex on a first date because they liked the guy but were willing to risk the repurcusions if it happened to send the wrong signals... not because they thought he was pathetic.

Believe me, that isn't the type of woman I would ever date... I know that sounds harsh, but it is honest. I like women with high standards.

There is never any circumstance where I would ever have sex with a woman who I thought was a total waste of my time... but if you want to have sex with men who you deem to be losers that's your perogative... just don't act surprised when that sort of behavior leads to problems.

I'm glad to hear Gail's experiences with the gold-digger guys. It works both ways these days, and it's up to men and women to pay close attention to the vibe they're getting on the first date. Always go into any new situation with both eyes open, nomatter what your goal is, whether it's just for fun, or a relationship.

I'm sorry, but you indicated that you thought this fellow was a pathetic loser who you wished you had never even gone out with in the first place... then you went home with the guy and had a night of wild sex.

It's called The Human Vibrator.

It's not an indication that her method of selecting partners is "tragically flawed." She wanted sex, she got it, she drop-kicked the guy afterward. I didn't see her mentioning any complaints from him. Also, it doesn't mean her partnership standards have the slightest thing wrong with them. Her sex partnership standards simply aren't in line with yours. They seem to work for her.

"It's called The Human Vibrator."

Amy, that is fine... except you don't expect a human sex toy to pay for your dinner.

Why not just pick up some random guy at a club or bar?

"It's not an indication that her method of selecting partners is "tragically flawed." She wanted sex, she got it, she drop-kicked the guy afterward. I didn't see her mentioning any complaints from him."

Here are her complaints:

"While I was driving to meet him he informed me we would be dining with his two friends and their wives. I almost went home. I should have."

This indicates that even after the fact she is saying that this guy wasn't worth her time. If all she was after was sex wouldn't it have made more sense to just say something like "I would have gone home, but was really only interested in sex anyway" instead of "I should have"?

"It was a pathetic moment for him. I knew I wouldn't go out with him again so I decided to go on back to his place and fuck his brains out."

Here is where she suggests that this guy was pathetic... not exactly the best criteria for sleeping with someone.

"Have you ever tried to love someone you should love but just couldn't? Ever been "in love" too long with someone who wasn't worth it? Ever done that twice? Ever cheated on someone?"

Based upon these statements I am then inclined to believe that she brings them up to illustrate her own personal experience. That she has been in all of these situations... that is why I make the tragically flawed statement. People who have these sorts of situations on a regular basis haven't exactly perfected their dating system.

I'm only going off what has been said, and based upon those facts alone I wouldn't be inclined to say that her partnership standards are set right... not because of my opinion of how things should be, but based upon what she has said.

Maybe I am wrong and they are working for her, but that just isn't the sense I got from reading her posts.

Amy, that is fine... except you don't expect a human sex toy to pay for your dinner.

Cheaper than a hooker. Believe me, if guys could buy dinner and know they were getting sex out of it, a lot of them would be a lot happier about it.

If somebody's life is working for them - ie, they aren't complaining to me about it and asking what they should do -- I assume they're satisfied and stay out of it.

I always thought the person who asked paid for the date irregardless of gender. It would be kind of cheap and tacky to ask someone out somewhere expensive and then expect them to whip out their credit card. If you ask them out, isn't if implied you are treating them?

But what the F*** do I know about straight people courtship rituals?

Seems right to me, and I'm a straight girl.

"Cheaper than a hooker. Believe me, if guys could buy dinner and know they were getting sex out of it, a lot of them would be a lot happier about it."

I'm pretty sure you just suggested that women who behave this way are cheap hookers... just remember, you said it, not me.

I have sex on the first date if I feel like it. If a guy can't get over it, he loses out on me.

And what's wrong with prostitution? Free market exchange between consenting adults. I find that ethical.

And what I suggested is that men date to get fucked a hell of a lot of the time. Is this a revelation?

Amy, that is a great attitude... there shouldn't be a huge social stimga about having sex on a first date, but it shouldn't be for money, it should be because that is what both people want to do.

As for prostitution, that is fine too if that is what the people are into.

Here is the all important difference... when it comes to prostitution, that is a business transaction... people knowingly exchange money for sex in that scenario. When it comes to dating, that isn't a business transaction... the guy isn't there to purchase sex and the woman isn't there to sell sex.

If that is what the date is, then it would be classified as false advertising unless the woman says "you pick up the check tonight and you'll get lucky"... but that doesn't happen.

Someone would be ritiously pissed off if they went to purchase a car, paid the salesman and then were told "thanks for the money, but I think I'll keep the car"... why would they be pissed?, because people expect to get what they pay for.

Men have no right to be pissed if a women doesn't sleep with them after they paid for dinner because they have no right to expect sex in exchange for money from them... if she was selling sex for dinner, then as you said, she is just a cheap hooker.

"And what I suggested is that men date to get fucked a hell of a lot of the time. Is this a revelation?"

If men are only looking to get fucked why not just go with the prostitute?

I am suggesting that men who are dating aren't looking to pay for sex. If they were there are more direct ways to achieve that goal.

Men may be interested in sex, but the vast majority aren't interested in paying for it.

If a woman wants to have sex with a guy, that is great... but if she's only doing it because he paid her or gave her a gift, then she shouldn't classify the interaction as a date, because that isn't what it was.

The reason I had such a big issue was in this particular case Amy sounded exactly like that creepy book: The Rules

i.e.
“Early on in a relationship, the man is the adversary.”

“Invariably, we find that men who insist that their dates meet them halfway… turn out to be
turds.”

“[The woman] doesn’t have to do anything more on the date than show up… don’t make it
easy for him… he has to do all the work.”

“It’s nice of you to care about his finances, but remember he is deriving great pleasure from
taking you out.”

Men I like meet me halfway to the bed, then throw me on it.

Personally, I find it's much cheaper to have sex for free.

Women don't say "You pick up the check/you get lucky."

For a lot of guys, getting lucky is getting a second date...and a chance to maybe get the girl in bed.

Bill Maher on "The Rules Girls": "If I looked like them, I'd write a book on how to trap a man, too."

If a woman were to offer to split the bill on the first date, my thought would be that she doesn't want me to think she owes me anything. I would think she is telling me she has no romantic interest.

I always insist upon paying for everything on the first couple of dates and I have NO expectations of anything in return. Desires, yes. Hopes, yes. Expectations, no.

With all of that said, I do understand where this fellow is coming from. A recent poll said that 74% of Women in their 30's would marry primarily for money. Charge me with being a perennial romantic, but marrying for money is P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C.

I happen to live in a community (Vancouver) that is exceedingly phoney and artificial; not the nature around it but the people in it. This seems to be especially true of the single women.

There are a few of us chivalrous knights around but the constant interaction with gold diggers has really begun to rust our armour.

I think there is something to evolutionary bents and such but there is a little thing called common sense. There needs to be flexibility. When I first start dating someone, I always offer to pick up the check. Damn me if you will and tell me that these men will take it the wrong way and that they will never want to see me again. Never been the case.

The reason being is that I am sincere and willing to pay if they accept and I am gracious and thank them if they decline my offer. Graciousness is a lost art as far as I'm concerned. It makes men feel appreciated, not used.

I also follow certain rules for myself. I rarely accept a date at a place that I cannot afford to eat at(I'm not at a financially solid place, am a server), if I do, I at least offer to pay the tip(never trust anyone else to tip as well as I do). Since most men I date make more money than I do, I make a conscious effort to not ask anything financial in nature other than where they work and what they do, because I would hate to be thought of as a golddigger because I am not. I also never go to the restroom when the check is about to arrive because that is tacky, you can hold it, you really can...

Jason, you make some good and well-thought out arguments, however, you are missing some key information. If you expect the woman to split the check on the first date, you, no matter how decent and wonderful a person you are, come off as cheap and disagreeable. At least to a great majority of women out there. It's either YOU pay the WHOLE bill or SHE pays the WHOLE bill. Tip is negotiable. If you pay the bill and expect to go somewhere else afterwards, then any good woman should offer to pay for that activity. And vice versa. If she doesn't, then you never have to see her again.

And one last note, a desert is a dry, arid place and a dessert is a sweet, luscious thing you eat after dinner.

Maureen,

Something that I feel is important to note based upon what you said:

"Jason, you make some good and well-thought out arguments, however, you are missing some key information. If you expect the woman to split the check on the first date, you, no matter how decent and wonderful a person you are, come off as cheap and disagreeable."

There is no expectation involved. What it boils down to is the following... if she is uninterested in investing in me to the same extent that I am interested in investing in her, then there will not be a second date.

I've never come across as cheap or disagreeable because I don't make an issue out of it if she doesn't offer to contribute. I'll happily pay and then never call her again.

I don't expect every woman I take out on a date to be a winner... but if I find out they are a loser I don't bother with them anymore.

I suppose I've just adopted the typical female dating strategy... I'm not there to prove my worth to her any more or less than she is there to prove her worth to me.

I recognize the entire situation as mutually beneficial, it isn't like a job interview where one person is unemployed looking for the other one to hire them on. For me it is like two unemployed people trying to start up a company together... in which case no one would put up with one person doing all the investing while the other just sits there.

I'm not interested in saying to someone "Hey, let's split the bill"... because even if they say sure, it wasn't necessarily something they wanted to do. If she merely offered to pay I would be increadibly impressed (and have been when that has occured before)... but I wouldn't feel comfortable just letting her foot the bill either, because then I have invested nothing. I might even suggest something akin to doing something after we eat that the other person can pay for... after all, if she desired to invest something that is the type of woman I'd want to spend more time with and invest more in myself.

My philosophy on all this is much more nuanced than it comes across upon simple explaination. As I said before though, when it comes to the dating game, no one has to settle.

Jason, do you mean you're using the check as sort of a litmus test -- you'll pay the whole thing if she doesn't offer to pay half, but then you just won't ever go out with her again? Bad move, I'd say -- you'll automatically miss out on all the women like me who will offer to pick up the check next time. Don't you have any vibes by the end of the first date whether the woman is a princess or not? Maureen's approach is different from mine, but she and I definitely agree on this -- dutch on the first date isn't romantic. (Dutch isn't romantic in general -- alternating checks is somehow much more romantic).

By the way -- if a woman does do the initiating on the date, I think she should pay. I don't initiate first dates anymore either because that also backfired on me. Now I flirt like hell until the guy asks me out. My theory is, he asks me out, he pursues for first date, so he pays for first date (assuming I like the guy and don't offer to go dutch, which in my book means just what Smarty thinks it means). Then, if we're both interested, we can alternate paying. However, the mere act of doing that initial pursuing seems to get guys more interested. Sounds so cheesy, but it does seem to work that way. The Rules girls advocate doing that throughout a relationship, which is clearly bogus and ridiculous (I also can't imagine ignoring his emails or egg-timing his phone calls, as the Rules women advocate.) Anyway, a "whoever asks pays" rule makes a certain sense, especially (as is usually the case) if the asker has determined where you're going and what you're doing, and gives a nice rule of thumb for first dates between either straight or gay couples. I'd feel pretty silly asking a guy to go to dinner, and then sitting there and expecting him to pay for it. If I ask a guy out on a second or third date (and that I'll do if I think the guy will like it), I do expect to do the paying.

Maureen and Alexa -- I'm glad offering to go dutch has worked for you. Maybe it's all in the style -- I think I came across as aggressive and/or uninterested, no matter how hard I tried not to seem that way. Conversely, I don't think I've ever come across as a gold-digger by letting the guy pick up that first check -- maybe because guys generally sense that I have no need for or interest in their wallet.

Jason,

Okay, I understand what you've been trying to say. It makes good logical sense.

I think that most women are raised with certain preconceptions about first dates(or dating in general) and that the man should pay. I've never bought into that. My parents were married very young and are basically low-key, low maintenance people. I was raised to believe that if you like who you're with, money doesn't matter. I actually like to pay if I really enjoy the company that I'm with because it's a way for me to show my gratitude. That also extends to meals or activities with friends, not just dates.

My boyfriend was completely and utterly the "man always pays" type until I came along. He was flexible enough to understand that I would not allow that attitude to remain for long. I'm not very comfortable when people pay for me even if they make much more than I do.

Case in point, my boyfriend makes about three times as much as I do, but I try very hard to help out and contribute as much as I can because I don't want to feel or make him feel like he's the primary supporter of our relationship. He pays the rent and most of our entertainment, I pay the utilities, cigarettes, beer and takeouts. I also pay for my bills and have rarely had to borrow money. I do this because I want him to know I'm with him for him and not for the money and the security that can bring.

I digress though, I feel that it doesn't really matter who pays at first but it does matter if you split the bill. Gail is right, going dutch doesn't put a quiver in my loins, so to speak. I, for whatever reason, don't consider the tip as part of the bill. Maybe because it's not necessarily mandatory to give one. So that is fair game. I hope that makes sense and doesn't make me sound like a hypocrite.

Jeezy Creezy. Are we still beating this ridiculous trope to death? You invite, you expect to pay. Have a problem with the women you're dating refusing to ante up? Reexamine the women you pick to date. Don't like it when a guy expects you to go dutch? Don't date the guys who do that.
Yes, I'd be a little thrown if the guy who invited me out didn't at least offer to pay...but I'd smile, slap down my credit card, and lose his number. Conversely, if I invite, I get the check before he has a chance to. Easy.

"Jason, do you mean you're using the check as sort of a litmus test -- you'll pay the whole thing if she doesn't offer to pay half, but then you just won't ever go out with her again? Bad move, I'd say -- you'll automatically miss out on all the women like me who will offer to pick up the check next time."

How is that fundamentally different than a woman using the event of the man just paying for everything on the first date as a litmus test?

You seem to be suggesting that women have the right to set up arbitrary criteria involving who pays on a first date but men do not.

By not offering to pay you'll automatically miss out on all the men like me who greatly appreciate that sort of gesture and take it as a sign that a woman is really interested in the man they are with and not just there for a free meal.

"Don't you have any vibes by the end of the first date whether the woman is a princess or not? Maureen's approach is different from mine, but she and I definitely agree on this -- dutch on the first date isn't romantic. (Dutch isn't romantic in general -- alternating checks is somehow much more romantic)."

The first date isn't supposed to be "romantic"... it is about getting to know one another to test compatibility. There is lots of time for romance, candle lit dinners, late night walks on the beach or whatever you can come up with that involves romance once a relationship has been established.

It isn't the job of a man to sweep you off your feet on the first date any more than it is your job to sweep him off his feet.

Why should I desire to be romantic with someone who for all I know is undependable, a poor conversationalist... or any number of other unnattractive qualities. I first need to discover if I like her enough... not every woman is going to be worth it.

"By the way -- if a woman does do the initiating on the date, I think she should pay. I don't initiate first dates anymore either because that also backfired on me. Now I flirt like hell until the guy asks me out. My theory is, he asks me out, he pursues for first date, so he pays for first date (assuming I like the guy and don't offer to go dutch, which in my book means just what Smarty thinks it means)."

This doesn't strike you as a increadibly manipulative?

So you are interested in the guy... but don't want to pay... so you set up this rule that the person who asks pays, and then flirt with the guy until he asks you?

I'm sorry, but I don't believe for me it would be a bad move to miss out on someone like you because I don't like women who play games like that.

Basically the rest of the relationship would be based upon you trying to manipulate me to do what you desire instead of you just being up front about anything... that just isn't my speed.

If you are interested in the guy, then ask him out on a date and then follow your own rule about paying... don't play the "I'll manipulate him into asking first so he will have to pay" game.

While I am sure you are very nice, and probably have luck with your dating strategy... I hope you understand that not everyone is going to like being dealt with that way.

You have your litmus tests, I have mine.

Maureen,

I appreciate that you have that kind of an attitude, no one should really feel comfortable with someone else paying for everything. There should be a sense of pride somewhere that you want to display your desire to contribute (even if it isn't financially due to one partner making much more than the other).

"I digress though, I feel that it doesn't really matter who pays at first but it does matter if you split the bill. Gail is right, going dutch doesn't put a quiver in my loins, so to speak."

There are better ways to put a quiver in someones loins than with paying a check. If that is all a guy has to offer to keep a woman interested then he should develop other skills.

If a woman is so turned off by a guy that doesn't toss his wallet right down on the table instantly to pay for everything... then probably she wasn't too interested in anything else he had to offer either.

This horse seems pretty well beaten, but I'd have to agree with Miss Manners' take on it: The person issuing the invitation pays, and the other person reciprocates next time. This is her view of platonic social obligations, too. It also prevents the issue of: "But you ordered surf and turf and I ordered a grilled cheese sandwich!" And it leaves people free to issue invitations in line with their budget. If my date makes much more than I do, he may choose an expensive restaurant, while I'd be more likely to choose a day of ice skating or a movie. Insisting on a perfectly even financial split is just crass.

"I'd have to agree with Miss Manners' take on it: The person issuing the invitation pays, and the other person reciprocates next time."

Monica, I think that is great... but the fact is that men are expected to do the asking... and hence by default would be expected to do the paying. Similarly, men typically do the asking for the subsuquent dates, so why would those be any different?

When women stop playing the "flirt until he asks" game, then I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

But the fact remains that if a woman is putting out huge signals to be asked out (but refuses to actually do the asking)... and the guy takes the bait and asks... why should he then take full responsibility for the whole thing?

I'd be very comfortable agreeing to the "whoever asks, pays" criteria if we are dealing with a situation involving total strangers, where a man or woman approaches someone they have never spoken to and just noticed from across a room.

Unfortunately that generally isn't how dates are formed... it's more typically of the flirtateous variety where the woman is waiting to be asked out. In that case when she is asked she is getting what she was after, it wasn't just some unexpected advance.

What you are essentially saying is that if men want to go with that strategy they just need to be more resolute in not asking... that his strategy should be to wait her out if he wants her to contribute anything at all. Basicaly it becomes a strange battle of wills that really serves no ones purpose.

You may believe that insisting upon a perfectly even split is crass... but I believe that insisting on a manipulative strategy is immature and potentially destructive to the relationship born out of it.

So far as dating someone who makes much more than you do... I believe I've states multiple times that in those sorts of situations, the investment would not be equal if any bill were split down the middle.

Ultimately $150 of a $300 dinner bill means a lot less to someone pulling in 6 figures than to someone earning 40K.

I am talking about equivalent investment... not necessarily equal financial splitting.

Oh for goodness sake Jason, no one is saying that all (or most) women are consciously going 'oh, he wants to go dutch, now I don't see him as boyfriend material', it's a largely subconscious thing, to do with attraction. Cheapness is not attractive in either gender, and for it be such a big issue (as it obviously is for you) is a sign of an unappealing personality. I am a man, and I agree in principle and intellectually that in our modern society where gender equality is valued, splitting the bill should be no big deal. But dating is not an intellectual activity! It's an animal ritual, and the subconscious is hugely important in anyone's success in this area. The fact is, you aren't going to impress anyone or make them want to date you again by coming off as an enormous tightwad on the first date!

I mean, you're trying to make a good impression, and I know that the cash is (or at least should be) ultimately insignificant in choosing a partner, but whatever happened to showing the lady a good time!? If it's that much of a bother for you, go for cheap dates (drinks, ice skating, a picnic), or if that's still too much for you, enjoy the many many first dates you get to complain about the bills in before you get to that elusive second date.

Jason, women who flirt until a guy asks are smart, because that is what works with men. Guys who tell you otherwise, that they love when women ask them out, don't really - what they love is not being rejected. Being pursued makes them devalue a woman -- whether they even know it or not. Again, this is all very deeply hard-wired evolutionary psychology. It didn't change a few decades ago just because Gloria Steinem put on a pair of bunny ears.

Again, I have as little fear of asking a guy out as I do of telling somebody shouting into a cell phone in public to put a sock in it. It just isn't a wise strategy.

The way my boyfriend behaved on our first sort of date (we met at The Grove and walked over to the Farmer's Mkt) -- "Sit down, I'll get you a drink, what do you want?" reflects how he is every day. He's the kind of guy who went to a book party for Matt Welch, and even though I already had the book and was going to lend it to him, he bought a copy. He's sending me to Paris as a present for our fifth anniversary. I had to persuade him that I should stay in the frugal choice of apartment.

Buying, at least on the first few dates, is your job, just as it's the woman's job to look hot (as it is throughout the relationship).

Steve gets it above.

Regarding an "equivalent investment," my Empreinte bras (luckily bought before the euro went on a hike up Everest compared to the dollar, can cost $136/$146. (I used to get them for $85ish or $65ish on sale in Paris.) And then there are the shoes, the clothes, the hair, the makeup, the upkeep. And not for a girl who looks like a hooker, either. The average girl with "the natural look" can spend a pile of money looking that way. My sunblock alone is now about $15 for a tiny tube (Anthelios #50+ pour la Visage). The girls who go the bargain route on that will be looking like Hermes handbags as they go off splitting the check down the middle (to the penny) with you into the sunset. PS Women who have to split the check to get with a guy with your thinking, Jason, are not the primo girls. Those girls can afford to hold out for a guy who shows the behavior they're hard-wired to look for. And do. In other words, Steve gets the girls, you get the leftovers. If any.

And Jason, as for being resolute about not asking women out, you should be banned from ever giving advice to anyone, and second, enjoy dating your remote, and we'll send you an extra box of Kleenex at Christmas to help you, uh, keep it clean.

Didn't expect to find this debate still going on. Jason, I'm guessing the reason Gail flirts until she is asked out instead of doing the asking has nothing to do with manipulating the guy to pay, its because asking backfired on her (her words). I've found the same thing. In my survey of guy friends (30-40 yrs old) only one said he wouldn't mind being asked and the rest agreed it would make the woman seem needy, easy or desperate and they would find it very difficult to decline a date even if they weren't interested. The one who said he likes being asked out has proved differently in his behavior. Of the women he's dated in the years I've known him, any of the one's who asked him out didn't work out at all (even if they seemed like they might be decent matches). He usually came back from those dates not sure why it wasn't right, just that it wasn't. The ones who he has to pursue a bit, always work out better.

I do think for younger daters, the acceptable rules (and I use that word loosely) might be different, although not necessarily more successful. In my younger days, I always insisted on paying half, opening my own doors, etc. I was determined to prove my independence. Didn't work out at all for me.

Finally, I realized there was nothing wrong with being pursued a bit or being taken care of a bit. There was no confusion about possible rejection by the men I was interested in, but I needed them to ask. I did always make a casual offer to cover my drink (nothing more than a drink and maybe a snack on a first date) but would have assumed if they agreed to let me pay they weren't interested (which would have been a decent, kind signal that I wasn't their cup of tea). All of them quickly (and many of them with a look of panicked shock) declined my offer. Second dates were always, at least partly, my treat. Your experience with women may be different, and there are always exceptions, but in the majority of mature dating situations anyway, guy asking and paying for first (inexpensive) date seems to work best.

"Oh for goodness sake Jason, no one is saying that all (or most) women are consciously going 'oh, he wants to go dutch, now I don't see him as boyfriend material', it's a largely subconscious thing, to do with attraction."

That is fine... so why criticize my own subconscious attraction to women who want to invest in me as much as they want me to invest in them.

Believe me... I get it that *some* women don't like men who won't pay for everything up front.

Yet some people don't seem to get that it is just as viable for me to reject women who behave that way... and it doesn't mean there is something wrong with my perspective.

Exactly what is so offensive about a man who is attracted to woman who are risk takers?

"Jason, women who flirt until a guy asks are smart, because that is what works with men."

She isn't being smart... she is being manipulative.

Someone who would seek to control the actions of another human being in that manner isn't likely to stop once a relationship begins.

"Guys who tell you otherwise, that they love when women ask them out, don't really - what they love is not being rejected."

I'm sorry, but on this one you've got it all wrong. Certainly *some* guys feel that way... maybe even *most* guys. But I'm telling you point blank that it isn't all guys.

No one likes to be rejected... but similarly everyone enjoys it when people show interest in them.

There is a such thing as both negative AND positive reinforcement.

What you are essentially saying the equivilant of is that children *only* behave because they fear getting punished... that it is impossible for children to behave because they like being praised.

It isn't as simple as the "avoid rejection" model you are proposing.

"Again, this is all very deeply hard-wired evolutionary psychology."

A large part of evolutionary psychology isn't hard-wired as you are suggesting.

Instead it is soft-wired... we are born with a somewhat malleable brain that judges it's environment and then slowly programs itself toward one of several evolutionarily successful mating strategies.

The presence of an active father figure for example will alter the soft wiring for example. By the time you reach adulthood it is certainly stuck in one mode and will never change... but that isn't quite the same as what you are talking about.

What I am saying is that while there may be many women and men out there who are now stuck in that particular mode of response... there are also men and women who due to differences in their environment growing up have been programmed differently and hence the final hard wired response is different.

This is part of why I believe it is a generational thing... because those here who seemed to grow up in the late 70's /80's appear to have a very different way of looking at things than those who grew up in the 50's and 60's.

There are VERY few things that men and women are hard wired for... mating strategies are not one of them... they are adaptable depending upon the mating environment we are raised within.

"Buying, at least on the first few dates, is your job, just as it's the woman's job to look hot (as it is throughout the relationship)."

Absolutely not... my only job on a date is to be kind, polite, entertaining, and to hold good conversation. Essentially my "job" is to be a decent human being... which is all her job is as well.

"PS Women who have to split the check to get with a guy with your thinking, Jason, are not the primo girls. Those girls can afford to hold out for a guy who shows the behavior they're hard-wired to look for. And do. In other words, Steve gets the girls, you get the leftovers. If any."

I've never felt like the women I've dated were anything less than primo.

You do not get to judge what a primo woman is in my book... the women I date tend to be increadibly intelligent and caring... in fact the only reason my last serious relationship didn't work out was because I had to move cities and we just weren't able to spend enough time together as we each wanted. She was absolutely amazing and believe me, she was primo by every definition of the word.

I know it may come as a shock to you and to others here that it is possible for my particular strategy to work... but I've learned that none of what you are saying is necessary.

Sure your method will work... but as they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

"Jason, I'm guessing the reason Gail flirts until she is asked out instead of doing the asking has nothing to do with manipulating the guy to pay, its because asking backfired on her (her words)."

I understand this... but exactly what does she or anyone else mean when they say it "backfired" or "didn't work out"?

It's almost like they are suggesting that when the men do the asking that suddenly everything works and always moves forward.

You know what a guy does when he asks someone out and it "backfires" or "doesn't work out"?... he lifts himself up by his boot straps and he tries again... he doesn't just give up.

That is essentially what I am hearing here... women attempted the whole asking a guy out thing and it wasn't instantly successful so they gave up. Do you realise what would happen if men gave up on asking women out just because it wasn't 100% successful?

This is really the crux of it for me... I'm not interested in women who like to play it safe... I want someone who I know is willing to take a risk in order to get a reward. When someone is willing to risk absolutely nothing, then I've really got no interest in them.

As I've said before, maybe this limits the selection of woman I should date... but I reject the notion that these types of women are somehow substandard. In my opinion they are the ones worth pursueing.

I tried to elaborate on "backfired" by my admittedly anecdotal and small, 12 guy sample that when a woman asked them out, they believed her to be needy, easy or desperate. None of those are first impressions I'd like to make with someone I might be interested in. No it doesn't always work out when the guy asks, but I do believe it sets up a better dynamic to give the majority of mating participants a better chance.

From my experience, obvious flirting isn't exactly a no risk proposition. A guy's response to obvious flirting can range from a date to outright rejection which can be pretty tough on a woman's ego too. As tough as date rejection for a man...don't know, I'm not one. But my bootstraps are in place and I've picked myself up by them many times.

You have every right to set whatever criteria you want. You are being criticized because you and women who agree with you appear to be in the minority (even those raised in the 70's/80's) so your strategy is less likely to be successful than the one suggested by Amy and others. Fill your boots however you want, but when handing out advice, it makes sense to go with what has been proven to work best for the majority.

Moreta,

I am sorry that your experience has not been positive when it comes to displaying your interest in a man directly.

A friend of mine just the other day was asked out by a woman he didn't know personally but was a friend of a women we all hang out with. Never once did he say "wow, she must be desperate"... or "I bet she's easy".

You know what he did?... He asked the mutual friend what she was like and if she was someone she'd recommend going on a date with. He was definately interested in seeing what she was like and didn't seem to attribute any of those negative things to her whatsoever.

This particular woman took a chance, and that is something I can definately respect... it is a positive attribute in my book.

"But my bootstraps are in place and I've picked myself up by them many times."

I think that is fantastic, a large part of dating is about being able to be resilient and taking appropriate chances... sometimes things work out, sometimes they don't. It's just the nature of the beast.

"You are being criticized because you and women who agree with you appear to be in the minority (even those raised in the 70's/80's) so your strategy is less likely to be successful than the one suggested by Amy and others."

Successful by whose standards?

The vast majority of relationships do not work out given the strategy you guys are all in favor of. That is the same strategy employed by people that eventually get married and end up with a better than 50/50 shot of divorce.

That is the same strategy that fails far more often than it works.

Believe me, if the strategy you and others are advocating had such an amazing track record I'd be all over it in a heart beat... but it honestly just doesn't have the sort of success rate that demands that all other methods be tossed out the window.

If you want to rate success by the number of second dates people go on that is fine... if you want to rate success by the number of times it leads to a sexually active relationship that is fine... but I am more inclined to determine success by what best leads to a long term relationship, as ultimately that is what most people are interested in attaining at some point.

If someone is just looking to get laid... then by all means, the strategy you guys are talking about is the way to go as it is all about instantaneous attraction and setting things up for short term benefits.

Sometimes that works long term as well... but based upon most statistics, I'd say it isn't very successful in terms of that metric.

There is a lot of talk here about evolutionary strategy which I find most interesting as it is a subject I've spent some time studying before.

One thing to note that is of critical importance is that men and womans criteria for long term partners is VERY different than for short term partners.

Criteria change based upon the sort of relationship you are looking for.

In general those who advocate the "men pay for everything" side are not really thinking long term.

Allow me to quote Smarty:

"If a woman were to offer to split the bill on the first date, my thought would be that she doesn't want me to think she owes me anything."

That is what men are generally thinking when they follow that strategy... that somehow the woman owes them something if you pay for everything. That if she were to declare that she in fact doesn't owe him anything, but still enjoys his company, that it is a serious turn off for him.

Yet the fact remains that women know that they don't owe men anything for being taken out on a date... why keep up the illusion?

That "owe me something" mentality is for the short term only... no guy who thinks that way believes that the woman will owe him something several months down the road.

Now obviously you have to get through the short term in order to get to the long term.

Allow me to draw an analogy for you though... many here are saying this is the correct system because the majority do it and it "works".

For a long time children were married off by their parents... they never even met the guy they were going to spend the rest of their lives with until the wedding. That system worked too... and at the time the majority were involved in that sort of a societal structure.

Would anyone declare that such a system is the way things ought to be just because it got men and women together and was done by most people at the time?

I reject the notion that just because everyone seems to be doing something that it makes it the correct or best course of action... furthermore, I reject the notion that just because something seems to work that it is by default the "best" way to handle things.

The popularity of a position does not determine it's merit... ideas stand or fall by virtue of their own merits, not by how many people buy into them.

As a further note... even following the strategy you guys are promoting, women aren't just attracted to money... they are attracted to status and power. I very much doubt that a famous actor would have to drop a penny on a woman to have her be interested in him.

The whole spending money strategy to keep a woman interested that you are all advocating is only even necessary for men who lack substantial status or power.

John Kennedy could have had any woman he wanted and probably wouldn't have to spend a dime on any of them to keep them around. The money he spent on them was just an additional benefit, it wasn't what was keeping them interested.

Keeping all that in mind, it isn't a huge leap to realize that there are many ways to keep someone interested beyond ones propensity to pay for everything... if anything it is a crutch that keeps many men from developing their ability to converse and be charming. They just get into the belief that so long as they pay, that is enough.

After all, that is what Amy said... it is a mans job to pay, and the womans job to look hot.

I just find it odd that she would probably support me more if I said I rejected women on dates because they were too fat rather than because they lacked the strength of character I am looking for.

This is absolutely my last post in this thread no matter what! Jason -- I gave offering to go dutch (and asking men out, for that matter) a VERY fair try --about 15 years of my dating life, to be exact. Why do I say it "didn't work?" During that time, every actual relationship I had arose from a friendship situation -- i.e., guy buddy and I gradually became romantic -- never from a dating situation. Like I said, that's totally fine, but it bugged me that the majority of my "date" type situations during this time period seemed to fizzle after date one -- and I had a lot of first dates. (THAT'S what I mean by "it wasn't working".) I was ok once I was in a relationship, but clearly I was doing something wrong on dates! During one of my boyfriend-less spells at around 29 or so, I was bemoaning my bad second date karma to a group of my guy friends over beers. Clearly it wasn't that I didn't get along with guys, clearly it wasn't that I was unattractive to men, clearly it wasn't that I wasn't relationship material, but just as clearly, I wasn't scoring so well on second dates, so what was I doing wrong? My guy buddies gave me a full and rather mortifying analysis of my first date technique and my general approach, which I initially rejected, but later decided was worth trying. One of the main points they made was that by offering to pay half, I was sending a signal that I didn't want to be obligated and wasn't interested (see, e.g., Smarty). To top it off (and mortify me more), they asked the bartender and every guy around them in the bar what they thought -- and every last one of them concurred with my guy friends. They also advised me not to ask guys out, for all the reasons people outlined above. I disagreed, laughed at them, argued with them, but months later, decided to start giving their advice a shot. What do I mean when I say it worked out better for me? Well, over the last several years, I very rarely DIDN'T get asked out on second and third dates. I've had 3 long-term relationships over the course of that time, and ALL of them arose out of dating situations rather than friendships. (Good thing, because now just about all of my guy friends are married!) Yeah, I'm not married, but I'm kinda like Amy in that I'm not looking for that and so that's not my measure of success. I want a happy and -- believe it or not -- reciprocal and honest relationship for as long as it lasts. My evidence that that's what mine have been is that I'm on friendly terms with my exes. Doing a bit of role-playing (or what Jason prefers to call manipulation) with regard to the first date or so has not caused the relationships to be dishonest -- on the contrary, the guys enjoyed flirting, they enjoyed pursuing, they don't seem to have the slightest problem picking up that first check, and I don't have the slightest problem picking up the second. Manipulative? I dunno -- I do in fact pick up half the checks in the relationship. I have never cheated in my life. I clearly signal when I'm interested and when I'm not, I don't lead guys on, and I don't let them pay if I'm not interested. If you consider flirting manipulative, I think you're missing out on some fun. But you're right, to each his or her own. And now, at last, I'll shut up.

Gail, you're cool.

I, too, did some investigation. I made up questionnaires, "Our Date: A Customer Satisfaction Survey" and found out pretty much what Gail did.

Jason, I'm guessing you get that we're right - you just don't want to admit that you're wrong. A book for you to read:

Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts

Amy,

On the vast majority of matters I happen to agree with you... just not on this one. My belief here isn't something subject to being "right or wrong" in the sense that I can give you a math equation and expect that everyone will have the same correct answer. I am talking for myself here as well as all the people in my own social circle with whom I am close enough to have discussed these matters with before.

Not only do I believe that your generalization is wrong... I know for an absolute fact that it doesn't apply to men like me.

As a matter of fact, a woman I just started dating last month (things aren't serious or anything yet, but she's got potential) did the whole dutch thing and actually by matter of a strange accident ended up paying for more of the after-dinner activities than I intended (long story short, she wanted to purchase something for herself while I was holding out my credit card to pay for the tickets, they ended up taking her credit card for the item she was interested in that I didn't even know she was purchasing and they ended up throwing everything onto her bill) Now she could have used that as an excuse to make the rest of the date atrocious, but that wasn't in her personality. Instead we had a great time and the truth is that in subsequent dates I've made up whatever the difference was at the time several fold (why?... because someone who can go through life not caring about that sort of thing is exactly the type of woman that I am inclined to invest more in).

If by contrast she had let the situation be cause for ruining the evening, chances are I would not really have been all that interested in her. Yet she handled herself with grace and dignity while understanding that we were both there for the same reason, so there was nothing wrong with each of us investing in one another.

Do I agree with you that there are men and women who believe as you do?... of course, there are many who have taken part in this discussion.

Why you refuse to acknowledge that there are also men and women who believe as I do when they also have taken part in this discussion is beyond me.

It is like we are standing here and shouting "what you are saying here does not apply to us" and you somehow are basically brushing it off as us just not wanting to admit that we see things exactly as you do and that we just don't want to admit it.

You can deny the existence of something all you like until it is standing right in front of you... you don't get to brush counter examples under the rug as if they are nonexistent. Scientists who ignore evidence in favor of their own personal theory are charged with academic dishonesty. You don't get to brush me or anyone like me under the rug as if we do not exist just so that your personal theory on this matter remains unchanged.

What I am declaring here is that expecting equal investment does not doom anyone to failure so long as you find someone of an equal belief system.

In my opinion you might as well be declaring that it is best to be Christian to get a date in America because if you are of another religion it might conflict too much with the majority of the populace. My contention is the equivalent of saying that there is nothing wrong with being Muslim, or Jewish, or any other religion, but that you might have to search a little harder to find someone of similar belief structure with whom you will be compatible.

I refuse to buy into the "convert" or be alone tactic you used earlier.

There are people like me out there... and maybe we aren't of the majority dating "religion"... but there are enough of us to find one another and do just fine.

Gail,

"If you consider flirting manipulative, I think you're missing out on some fun."

Flirting is great, that isn't the manipulative part.

Flirting in order to get someone to behave a certain way or to do something for you is by definition manipulative.

To manipulate someone means to bend them to your will by some sort of tactic... flirting can be such a tactic.

When I flirt with someone it isn't so I can get them to buy me something.

That is the difference... flirting for the sake of fun, or to express sexual interest is one thing... flirting for monetary reward or to control someones actions is another.

Small correction:

"Scientists who ignore evidence in favor of their own personal theory are charged with academic dishonesty."

There should be a *not* in there.

Jason, please, please, stop posting these rambling, repetitive, page after page after page arguments. I'm beginning to think this might be your style of conversation, too.
Amy was serious, I believe, about you reading "Mistakes Were Made(But Not By Me)" and you act as if you didn't even see what she posted. Why is that, I wonder. Go away. If you are unable to stop trying to prove you're right, at least don't repeat yourself one more time.

Thanks DFrey.

Jason, I'm not saying you can't have something work out by going dutch. I've said it again, and again, and again, and again, and again. It's not the most successful strategy. Here, I'll paste in what I wrote on December 12:

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.

Really, read the book I recommended. (That is, if you ever actually read words you haven't written.)

DFrey,

You don't have to bother reading anything I've said. I don't waste my time on content that isn't interesting to me, nor should you.

If you think they are rambling and repetative then clearly you haven't actually read anything I've written. Each post has new content including new examples or responses drected at things a particular poster has written.

You are free to dissagree with me, but at the very least be clever enough to recognize that there are *new* things in each post.

As for not responding to part of Amy's post... I
responded to it directly with the following statement:

"On the vast majority of matters I happen to agree with you... just not on this one."

That was my very first sentance in which I declared that I in fact did not agree with her on this issue. Why refer to the book in specific when her reason for suggesting it was because she claimed that I secretly agreed with her but just didn't want to admit it?

I don't care if you agree with me or dissagree with me, but do us both the favor of reading what I've written *before* making claims about what I've discussed and what I haven't.

Amy,

With regard to the most successful strategy... what metric are you using? As I commented before, the strategy you propose isn't this wonderful success mechanism you or anyone else is purporting it to be. If anything it is much less than 50/50 shot. I've had way better odds than that. Maybe I'm an anomoly, but I doubt it.

As for peoples contention saying that you increase your odds with women if you open your wallet. Increase your odds of what exactly?... Getting them to sleep with you after date one?... getting them to go on date number two?

If my goal is to just pick up women for sex, dating isn't even the most successful stragey anyway. Just head to the bar or club and pick someone up. So far as second dates go, any woman I've wanted a second date with, I've gone on a second date with. As a result I don't see where your proposed method improves my chances of success for anything in terms of where it counts (i.e. dating the women I want to date).

You haven't displayed how what you are suggesting increases my chances for anything substantive, all it does is increase my chances with women who I specifically do not desire (and I'm not the only one who doesn't desire those types of women)... women can increase their chances with men they don't want too... but I wouldn't recommend those strategies as "winners" for them on a personal basis.

Anyway, I've attempted to hold a civil discourse here and believe I've succeeded in that regard. However, it is clear that anyone else contributing to the conversation at this point will be more interested in tossing insults than sharing opinions. I can't say that I've gained respect or admiration for you during this discussion as there are a few tactics you've used that I felt were beneath you, but I'll continue reading your column from time to time as in general you're a clever author. Take good care, and congratulations with regard to the anniversary.

"If anything it is much less than 50/50 shot."

What statistic are you referring to? Marriage success rates? Many people don't believe a lasting marriage is the definition of a successful relationship. And I think Amy is right when she says you can't admit you are wrong. The majority of people who have posted agrees dutch is tacky and classless. You don't. Fine. I also think people who REFUSE to recognize the validity of an argument are controlling, which is also classless, tacky, and not to mention rude. The way you converse on this blog is reflective of a person who would insist on dutch, and exactly why most of us would never go out with you again.

"I've had way better odds than that. Maybe I'm an anomoly, but I doubt it."

Quit doubting. You are. It has been proven by the droves and droves of people who have blogged about their similar-to-your experiences. (Like 2? 4 if you consider the trolls?)

"What statistic are you referring to? Marriage success rates? Many people don't believe a lasting marriage is the definition of a successful relationship."

That is what I have been asking about with reference to your group and I've yet to recieve a response.

What is it that you guys consider the benchmark of success?

It is your side of the debate that has been going on and on about how the method you are proposing is the *most* successful. Therefore the burden of proof is on you, not me. While many of you are probably used to just making a claim, checking to see if it is popular and then saying it's accurate based upon that... that isn't how things work. You have all expressed a shared opinion... but guess what, there were many people who once shared the opinion that the sun revolved around the earth, they were wrong.

I'm not inclined to consider marriage the benchmark either as those can fail just as easily as any other form of relationship. I'd suggest that success is something on the order of a lasting relationship (i.e. more than a year in length). In which case I will suggest that less than half of the people you have dated resulted in relationships that lasted longer than a year (if I am incorrect please feel free to say so).

"I also think people who REFUSE to recognize the validity of an argument are controlling, which is also classless, tacky, and not to mention rude."

The validity of what argument?... I've recognized many times already that this may be the ideal methos for you guys, but don't think for one second that it is the ideal method for everyone.

The problem I see here is that somehow people are aghast that there are a collection of men and women out there who prefer a different type of relationship partner. That somehow people expressing your range of opinions wouldn't rank very high on our dating charts. I'm sorry if that is a blow to your ego, but not everyone is going to prefer women like you, it is a hard pill to swallow I suppose, but it is the truth.

You can feel free calling people who are more akin to my belief system rude, classless, and tacky. I will say this however, not a single person who has mentioned in this thread that they are not inclined to agree with your position has tried to insult you or anyone else here personally merely based upon the fact that they do not agree with you. Many of those on your side of the debate however have resorted to that sort of fallacious tactic, and in my opinion that is rude, classless, and tacky and reflective of an intolerant and judgmental human being.

The difference between you and I is I came here to discuss an issue and reflect upon the alternate positions of others... you came here to attempt to bully anyone who dissagrees with you into saying nothing lest they be insulted. Unfortunately I am the type of person who deals with the facts and I try to stick to them as best I can. The earth revolves around the sun kg, and I don't care how many people stamp their feet and call me a heritic because I say it.

I have the luxury of not needing to get married. I support myself, and I don't crumble if I spend an hour, a day, or a week alone. For me, a successful relationship is a happy one -- one in which two people are better together and have more fun together than alone. For as long as it lasts. When people ask me how long my boyfriend and I have been together, I'll tell them (five years at the moment), but I preface it by explaining, "I don't value tenure."

Jason, your "belief system" isn't based on what is likely to work, but what you've decided to cling to.

You do anything but "reflect upon alternate positions of others."

Either that, or your ability to think logically pales by comparison to that of my dog.

"Quit doubting. You are. It has been proven by the droves and droves of people who have blogged about their similar-to-your experiences. (Like 2? 4 if you consider the trolls?)"

2 huh, your number seemed fishy to me so I decided to check you on it.

Let's actually do a short accounting here shall we?

Jerry, Canaryguy, Flighty, Ayn_Randian (in principle), Phunctor, Chad, Alexa, and Not Suffering all seem to have expressed similar beliefs to me, most *before* I said a word here. I could look beyond the first 25% of this thread but I won't bother.

That is 7 definitive, 1 agreement on principle prior to me expressing a single word.

One of a few things must have occured here for your numbers to be so way off:

1. You do not know the difference between 2 and 8 (I doubt that is the case)

2. You are intentionally offering false statements to bolster your position. (I'd like to believe that you aren't a liar)

3. You have conveniently glossed over those who dissagree with your position and are acting like they do not exist (I believe this is actually the case)

In otherwords, you are stating that there are "droves and droves" of people on your side of the fence while conveniently ignoring the existance of any of your detractors (or calling them trolls).

One of us isn't really taking in all the facts here kg... and it isn't me.

I'd go so far as to say that most of the people on your side are only holding up their belief under the false banner that it is held by just about everyone else, but there is a significant segment of the population that doesn't actually see things as you do, please take the blinders off.

I can walk into a church and start polling people to see who believes that Jesus is their savior... but if I then used that as a means to declare that close to 100% of people think that way I'd be way off base.

Intellectual honesty is our friend.

"Jason, your "belief system" isn't based on what is likely to work, but what you've decided to cling to."

Define for me what you mean by likely to work.

You have yet to do so such that I can measure my method on the same scale that you measure yours.

If happiness is the measure, then I am doing just fine.

I'm not "clinging" to anything anymore than you are... I am telling you point blank that my method does work for me and you keep trying to assert that I secretly agree with you, or that I know I am wrong but don't want to admit it.

There are other groups who do similar things, they are called fundamentalists.

You aren't actually listening to what I am saying and instead filtering my words through some sieve that only lets you hear "your way is better, I just won't admit it".

I never thought you or anyone on your blog would have so much in common with religious zealots... but that is what I am seeing here at the moment.

In support of intellectual honesty:

Who asks is who pays:
fima
vlad
Conan the Grammarian
DuWayne
orbit
sfm
Doily
maureen
ahm18057
Monica
= 10

Man pays (most likely because he asked):
Morbideus
Ayn_Randian (he may agree with you in principle, but knows he's more successful this way)
Blackjack
Matt
Kim
moreta
jerry
Gail
sofar
kg
Cousin Dave
Wayne
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
Donna
PJ
Matt
Smarty
Robert W.
Steve
= 19

Going Dutch:
canaryguy (guy)
flighty (guy)
phunctor (guy)
Chad (guy)
Alexa (girl)
Jason (guy)
Suffering (possible troll) (guy)
cybro (troll) (guy)
= 8

So, if I do the math, we’ve got 10+19+8 = 37 opinions clearly expressed. 8/37 is 21.6%. If we can take this as a representative sample, then you’re method is shared with about 21.6 of the population. If we take a look at the number of women who agreed with your position (guessing, obviously, as you can never be sure on-line) the number drops to 1 of 37 or 2.7%.

There’s some data for you to ponder. Glad I had a few spare minutes to come up with them.

I would agree that success means any relationship in which you are enjoying each other’s company, regardless of whether it lasts a week or a lifetime.

Jason,

Saying you are tacky, classless, and rude is an observation, not an insult. I am sincerely not attempting to insult you by expressing what is obvious to me. I recognize you and I are not going to agree, but I think being aware of differing views is important. You can simply say it doesn't make sense (or whatever) for a man to believe a woman is not in to them romantically if she pays or goes half, but what I'm saying is that many will feel that way. I am amazed that you refuse to see some of the valid points that people have made. And many of the writers here have discussed that your way doesn't work AT ALL for them (some after 15 yeas of trying), and you still vehemently disagree. Come on!

Your figures aren't valid considering Amy's interpretation of a successful relationship. And, again, I am on her boat with this one. Quality not quantity.

Vlad, did you forget Amy in your equations? You rock by the way.

Oh, and, yeah, I was a wee bit off on the numbers, Jase. You wanna know something weird? The wine-date guy's name is Jason.

And I'm glad it has always worked for you. You are either pretty hot (many young girls will put up with a lot shit for a super hot stud) or you choose out of your league, so it's kinda a sure thing. You seem controlling to me, so I'm guessing you are drawn to girls who will allow themselves to be moved by that kind of dominance. But, baby, there are a lot of awesome chicks out there you could never get next to. I'd still fuck you, though. If it's big enough.

Frankly, I did not take the half hour to read all these postings. Marc Rudov says women who link the man paying the way on dates or they don't get sex, are prostitutes. Marc is right.

We are a number of decades past women being helpless and dependent. It is time for those who demand equality to start practicing it all the time, not just when it suits them.

Moreta,

I really appreciate that you took the time to be so diligant about things, it's something I would have done, but honestly didn't have the time for earlier. One problem though... I believe that jerry belongs in the going dutch column... I'm fairly certain his post about having erectile problems when he doesn't pay is sarcastic.

Needless to say are absolutely correct that it is around 20-25% of the people who expressed their opinions here. I do however object to the notion that this sampling of the population is representative of the population at large. I'd wager for example that if we were to poll the people who visit this website with regard to who they would vote for in the upcomming presidential election that it would vary widely from the general populace.

When taking samples it is important for them to be a random distribution... and for them to be representative of the population at large the sample size needs to approach the thousands, not 37. Needless to say, a collection of people who visit Amy's website isn't exactly random.

With all of that being said, I can't tell you that when it comes to the population at large that things will improve or decline with reference to the position I'm in support of. The important point is merely to recognize that what 37 people say on one website isn't going to give us an accurate portrayal of the americal public any more than walking into a new york city bar will give us an accurate portrayal of the american dating scene.

Again, thank you for looking through everything. Needless to say, things aren't as cut and dry as some would like to assert. I've never claimed to be in the majority... but stand by my assertion that a significant portion of the population agrees or is sympathetic to what I am saying.

kg,

"Saying you are tacky, classless, and rude is an observation, not an insult."

An observation of what?... it is an insult plain and simple.

If I am so rude then would you care to explain why when Amy insinuated that her dog is more intelligent than I am that I said nothing in retaliation?

The fact is that I have been polite and respectful to many of you even when you don't deserve such consideration.

I'd say that I've displayed far more class than the vast majorty of the people I am conversing with... including the site owner.

You've called me rude, tacky, and classless because I have a different opinion than you do... not because I've actually been rude to anyone.

"I am amazed that you refuse to see some of the valid points that people have made. And many of the writers here have discussed that your way doesn't work AT ALL for them (some after 15 yeas of trying), and you still vehemently disagree. Come on!"

It is simple kg... their anecdotal evidence doesn't trump my own. If each and every one of you started telling me that it was impossible to do something that I've done on a regular basis, why on earth should I suddenly agree with you?

I'll agree that it hasn't worked for you... but I won't agree that it hasn't worked for me because that would be a lie.

"Your figures aren't valid considering Amy's interpretation of a successful relationship."

She never said what her interpretation of a successful relationship was... if it is quality and not quantity then that is fine... even by that metric I'm happy with how things have turned out for me, I've always gotten along well with people I've dated.

"Oh, and, yeah, I was a wee bit off on the numbers, Jase. You wanna know something weird? The wine-date guy's name is Jason."

That is weird... but Jason isn't my first name, it's my middle name.

"You seem controlling to me, so I'm guessing you are drawn to girls who will allow themselves to be moved by that kind of dominance. But, baby, there are a lot of awesome chicks out there you could never get next to."

I'm not controlling... but by the same token I'm not the type of guy who when you say pay say's "how much". There are lots of guys out there who just roll over and do whatever the women in their lives expect of them even when they disagree. I think what you see as controlling is really that I just refuse to be controlled.

As for the awesome chicks out there I could never get next to... when it boils down to it I only need one, and I'd much rather she and I see eye to eye on things so that we can get off on the right foot... otherwise problems are bound to emerge later.

If you recall, this thread started with married men complaining that their wives were *still* functioning under the "what's yours is ours and what's mine is mine" mentality... they were under the misguided belief that the women in their lives would change after the wedding and then are slightly upset with that part of their personality. They wouldn't be in that boat if they found someone who was inclined to invest equally in the relationship to begin with.

Absolutely last post from me on this. Jason, I don't know how you implement your make her pay her half on a first date thing, but I can see how it might come off as tacky in my mind. However, you wouldn't care because since we don't see eye to eye on the matter we wouldn't be out on a second date anyway. If you happen to be out with "your kinda girl" it clearly goes over fine as it "works for you". Your point has been taken...it works for you and 20-25% (your estimate) of the elegible dater's out there. Fantastic. For the majority though, we'll stick to the guy asks, guy pays first date (or girl asks and pays) and then negotiate what works for each couple beyond that.

Observation (or insult if you prefer) forthcoming, so if you're feeling particularly senstitive, you might want to skip to the end. I've found your last two comments to me to be annoyingly patronizing which I find extremely distasteful. Your "sympathy" that being the initiator hadn't resulted in successful dates (they did result in dates, by the way) nearly made me respond with an "oh, fuck off" (but I try not to take such bait) and your "generous" explanation of how an accurate statistical analysis is generated was annoying. Gee whiz, Jason, thanks for letting me know that 37 isn't a statistically significant population.

"What I think I hear you saying" is that you're conversing like we're in a therapy session or like you're a SNAG. Gross. But that's just me. Your "politeness" comes across as veiled superiority. If you're so passionate about a point, then sound like it. Quit telling us how polite and great you are, and make an argument that suggests your method is generally (ie: works for the majority) better than the alternative. Something beyond that it works for you and therefore must work for a small percentage of others.

We are a number of decades past women being helpless and dependent. It is time for those who demand equality to start practicing it all the time, not just when it suits them.

How, Mr. anonymous 65-year-old, do you plan to get that message to our genes? And do you likewise plan to get a message to your genes that never mind dating beautiful young chicks, you'll take a homely, middle-aged woman with a beautiful personality?

Jason, you don't have a very good grasp on the words, either. I didn't "insinuate" you were less intelligent than my dog; I suggested your ability to think rationally leaves something to be desired. Based, not on being "classless," but on simple observation from what you've commented here, and the way you refuse to consider the empirical or hard-wired biology.

And moreover, suggesting that guys take a tack that works for your estimate of 20-25% percent of the population -- well, there's a great strategy for a guy who has a hard time getting a date. "Keep lookin', buddy!" It's hard enough these days to get men to ask women out. And then the men wonder why they never have any dates. Seriously!

Moreta,

You can find it patronizing if you like... but if you recall I specifically thanked you for your effort and was trying to convey to you that it was appreciated. Only then did I issue my concerns because the group here isn't representative of the population at large as your 20% assertion might lead others to believe. It wasn't to let you know that 37 wasn't statistically significant persay... it was to let someone reading it later who might be unfamiliar with statistical analysis know it wasn't significant.

So far as my response to kg... I think you are way off base if you think I was patronizing in any way to her. In her previous post she refered to me as "jase" and "baby"... two patronizing pet names that really aren't appropriate to this discussion. You want to call my response patronizing?... so be it... but I'll remind you that didn't call her "toots" or any other such patronizing term as she refered to me. Where I come from if you treat people with respect, you get that returned to you... if not, you get what you give.

Double standards seem to be all over the place apparently.

"Your "sympathy" that being the initiator hadn't resulted in successful dates"

Here is where the confusion for me resides.

What about them wasn't successful?

According to Amy, all that matters for a successful date is enjoying your time with them. Did you not have any fun during the time you spent together?... or is it more than just about enjoying someone elses company as I suspect most of you mean when you use the word "success"?

I know you won't answer as that was your last post, but this is the sort of ambiguity that I've been trying to cut through.

"Quit telling us how polite and great you are, and make an argument that suggests your method is generally (ie: works for the majority) better than the alternative."

Listen Moreta, I'd love to leave any sort of personal stuff out of the conversation entirely. However, exactly how does not respond to someone calling them tactless, and rude over and over without pointing to specific instances where I've been anything but those things?

You want to keep it to the issues, so do I... unfortunately not everyone here sees things as you and I do.

According to Amy, all that matters for a successful date is enjoying your time with them. Did you not have any fun during the time you spent together?... or is it more than just about enjoying someone elses company as I suspect most of you mean when you use the word "success"?

Stop misquoting me and misrepresenting what I say. I'm sorry you lack reading comprehension and/or are just lazy, but go back and actually read what I said so you won't get it wrong.

I was talking about how I, personally, view a successful relationship: Two people who are better together and have more fun together than alone. I also said I have the luxury of not needing to be with somebody forever. So, when it's no longer fun and enriching, it's breakup time.

You're not only sloppy, you're illogical. That's an observation, not an "attack."

"Jason, you don't have a very good grasp on the words, either. I didn't "insinuate" you were less intelligent than my dog; I suggested your ability to think rationally leaves something to be desired."

Amy, you actually must believe I am stupid if you think I'm going to buy that argument.

"I don't think you are unintelligent... I just don't think you can read or think rationally"

Quit the bull shit please and stand up and say what you think. You are only making yourself look silly by trying to deny what was obviously your intention.

"Based, not on being "classless," but on simple observation from what you've commented here, and the way you refuse to consider the empirical or hard-wired biology."

Amy, with all due respect, you are not an expert when it comes to evolutionary psychology. I've actually studied the subject enough to know exactly where you are off base here.

What you call hard-wired biology actually isn't hard-wired. It is MUCH more complicated than you are letting on, and by your oversimplification you are missing out on several key details.

Allow me to explain... according to evolutionary psychology the ideal mating strategy for a woman is to obtain two things from her mate. One is rescources (which has been the focus of your discussion)... the other is good genes (something you've conveniently ignored).

Unfortunately the guy with the rescources and the guy with the good genes aren't always one and the same. What this means is that the ideal mating strategy for a women from an evolutionary psychology perspective is to get the guy with the rescources to think that the child she has by the guy with the good genes is really his.

According to your methodoligy I might as well declare that paternaty fraud is a hard-wired female behavior.

Here is the crux of what we learn from evolutionary psychology... if your genes are good enough (i.e. if you are good looking, intelligent, or in some other way an outstanding male specimin) you don't have to invest anything to get a woman interested in you.

The only time you need to put on this whole rescource display is if you really weren't good enough for the woman in the first place.

By the way, kg even admits this directly when she says the following :

"many young girls will put up with a lot shit for a super hot stud"

If more men knew what the whole "the man pays for the date" thing was really all about they would be disgusted.

It isn't about them showing off their resources to make you hot... it is about the fact that they don't make you hot to begin with and you need an excuse to "settle".

Just to point something else out to you... evolutionary psychology isn't about hard-wired responses... it is about trends and explainations for those trends. Nothing in evolutionary psychology is 100%... otherwise we'd be forced to conclude that first born children are hard-wired to be more successful than those born after them.

The problem is with that statement is that it isn't hard-wiring at all... the human mind is adaptive within certain limits to the environment to which it is exposed.

Just in case there is confusion as I realized after I typed it that there might me... the second quote is not an actual quote, but a paraphrasing. Sorry if it is unclear.

Man, I am so sorry everyone, and am I going to hate myself for this in the morning, but I've actually really been wanting to ask this, and since the thread didn't die. . .

Jason, you mentioned that you recently had a first date with a woman who accidentally ended up paying for all the show tickets when you'd intended to pick up that part of the date. In other words, according to your account, she DIDN'T go dutch; instead she paid for all or most of the first date (you mentioned that you were supposed to buy BOTH the tickets, not just yours. So did she also buy dinner?) SO -- WHY didn't you reimburse her for your share THAT NIGHT?

I know you said that since then, you've more than made up for it, and I'll take that as true. However -- while that's totally fine under MY first date rules, I don't think it's at all fine under the first date rules you've laid out as proper in this forum. MY rules are that the RELATIONSHIP is equal. He gets the first date, I take him out the next time (if he'll let me), and the relationship equals out. I also agree that if the woman asks for the date, she gets the first date, and then the guy can get the second, and it all equals out. That's fine by Maureen's rules, and Amy's rules, etc. etc.

But YOUR rules, as you've set them out here, are that first dates must be an EQUAL ECONOMIC INVESTMENT because both parties don't know whether they are interested yet, so it is unfair for one party to pay more. So, both parties put in the same amount. OK, but -- You DIDN'T put in the same amount on that first date. SHE put in more -- much more, maybe paid for all of it, from the sound of it. It was HER investment, at least mostly, and if she'd decided not to see you again, or you her, you'd never be making it up to her. Under MY rules, that might be the chance you take, but NOT under yours. You are emphatically NOT ok with me making things equal later by paying for the second date. So WHY was it ok for YOU to do so? Why didn't you just give her the $20 or $40 or whatever for your ticket that night? ATMs are everywhere these days. Can you explain why you didn't?

It honestly sounds to me like you were "testing" the woman -- if she balked at paying the lion's share of the date, you admit that you wouldn't have been interested in her and she was history. If she smiled and said nothing, then she "passed" and you'd "reward" her later. Well, that's your prerogative, if that's what you want to do, but . . . it sounds like gamesmanship.

I seriously cannot see how you can call me manipulative when you've got all these tests. Even if you don't like it, my approach is right out there. There is nothing at all deceitful about it -- the guy totally knows what's going on from minute one. I flirt, he knows I'm interested, he asks me out, and it's pretty clear he's going to pay (and he only pays if I'm interested). It's all out there. But it sounds being on a date with you is fraught with hidden tests and booby traps! (I'd love to know what Alexa thinks about this, if she's still reading this thread. She sounds exactly like me at age 29 arguing to my guy friends in favor of dutch treat -- and I sure wouldn't have liked this scenario one bit. Shout out to Alexa?)

I actually feel kind of bad asking you with this question, both because (a) a lot of people have been jumping on you, and while I don't agree with what you've said, I like to keep the fight clear of name-calling and in general hate to pile on anyone, and (b) it's high time this thread dies. But I just can't stand it -- I really would like to know the answer to this one! Why didn't you even the score on that first date?

I just love you, Gail.

Gail,

"Jason, you mentioned that you recently had a first date with a woman who accidentally ended up paying for all the show tickets when you'd intended to pick up that part of the date. In other words, according to your account, she DIDN'T go dutch; instead she paid for all or most of the first date (you mentioned that you were supposed to buy BOTH the tickets, not just yours. So did she also buy dinner?) SO -- WHY didn't you reimburse her for your share THAT NIGHT?"

Dinner was dutch... the activity ended up being paid for entirely by her due to the strange series of events that I explained earlier. As a result I ended up picking up the coat check for each of us and covered the remainder of what came up before the evening was over. Needless to say, things were pretty even... but I was most impressed by how she handled the situation, it didn't even seem to phase her. If you expected me to pull the credit card out of the attendants hand and make a scene in the middle of the place just to make things even then and there, you've got the wrong guy. I try to keep things relaxed and low tension and then handled things afterward.

"I know you said that since then, you've more than made up for it, and I'll take that as true."

I want to be clear here, "making up for it" wasn't to mean that I covered some financial debt because there wasn't any. It was meant to convey that in subsuquent dates I made special efforts to let her know that I thought she she was really amazing in the event that she felt awkward about it. I honestly don't think she did feel awkward about it though... if anything it bothered me more than it bothered her precisely because I like things to be even on those types of exploratory encounters.

Needless to say, while your argument is well laid out... the fact is that you were not in the possession of other details that maintain my consistancy.

"Under MY rules, that might be the chance you take, but NOT under yours. You are emphatically NOT ok with me making things equal later by paying for the second date. So WHY was it ok for YOU to do so?"

I didn't do so... you just weren't in possession of all the facts as I didn't bother to itemize the entire evening for you, I only mentioned dinner and the tickets to the event. That doesn't include food at the event, or coat checking etc...

I'd also like to point out that I never said my "rules" were as hard and fast as you are suggesting... I've also mentioned that I believe it is perfectly fine if one person makes much more money than the other for them to pick up the tab for the whole evening.

My philosophy is equality of investment... not necessarily equality of money spent, it's much more nuanced than merely "split the bill".

If I were to date someone who was in dire financial straights for example, I'd have no trouble paying for everything... because for her to pay any part of it would be a much larger financial burden than it would be on me.

In this case she and I are in similar financial situations so those exceptions do not apply... but I just want to make it clear that it isn't about "equal money"... it is about equilivalent investment.

( . . . must . . . not . . . post . . . AARRGH! can't stop myself!)

But . . . but . . . coat check is, like, a dollar. And you'd just had dinner, so what food are you consuming at the event? And taking that aside for a minute, you mean "equal" generally means that each tiny little event within the date is split down the middle right down to the coat check? That's not a date (heck, it's not even an "exploratory encounter"), it's a freaking contract negotiation! (and I'm a lawyer! I know one when I see one!) I don't get that down to the nitty gritty with my running club buddies at post-run brunches! Even my contract negotiations are more easy-going! ALEXA! FLIGHTY! Come back! I want to know what you guys think of this! Hey! Where'd everybody goooooo??

(Amy, on bended knee, I am begging you to please, please, please cut me off before I post again. I'm home with a bad cold tonight, and all congested and cranky, that's the problem, but that is absolutely no excuse. I promise I'm going to turn off my computer right now, and them I'm giving myself a much-deserved spanking and sending myself straight to bed.)

GAAAHHH! Can't sleep!

. . . hang on . . . you WILL sometimes pay for all or most of the whole first date, but ONLY if she's poorer than you? Then what's she "investing'? How can you tell if she's a gold-digger under your standards? Or is it ok if she's a gold-digger if she has less money? And how do you even know if she has less money? Sometimes I have some idea of what my first dates make if I know what they do and it's something to which I can attach a ball-park figure from my own experience, but often I don't have a clue until I get to know them better. Do you compare W-2's?

I must stop. I shall slam my hands in my desk drawers until they are too swollen to type.

Gail,

Coatcheck was like a dollar... but then there were snacks (we did walk for a while together after dinner... so it wasn't like we had just eaten)... there were drinks... and before we left I picked her up a present in the gift shop to match what she'd gotten for her niece.

"And taking that aside for a minute, you mean "equal" generally means that each tiny little event within the date is split down the middle right down to the coat check?"

Not at all... you are making it way more complicated than it really is.

It isn't about itemizing each and every single thing or keeping a running tab and checking things down to the penny so we can settle up before the night is over.

What it is about is getting a sense that the other person is there to be with you... that they want to invest in you then and there to some meaningful degree, just as you are investing in them.

By the time we had left dinner I honestly wouldn't have cared about picking up the rest of the evening entirely... but here is the reason why... because by splitting dinner she demonstrated that she didn't care about the money... she was there to be with me, to have fun with me, and to enjoy my company.

Not because she was expecting me to entertain her. It's all about expectations, and what I discovered that night was that her only expectation was to have fun in my company.

Now I'm not saying things between her and I will work out, but I am saying that that particular character trait was something I found appealing.

I really feel that you and others have gotten a very strange impression of what I am getting at here.

Let's put it this way... if a woman somehow demonstrates that she doesn't expect for me to pay for everything... that it isn't a criteria for her to measure me up, then I can be comfortable that she's actually there just to be with me and then I don't care about the money anymore because she and I are on the same wavelength. If she's the kind of woman who thinks that if I don't pay for everything then I'm not doing my job... well she's not the girl for me because frankly I don't need to prove myself to her anymore than she needs to prove herself to me.

I'm on the date to share her company, pure and simple... if she's there to share my company AND expects me to finance the whole operation so she can be entertained, then I don't want part of her.

I suppose a good analogy would be this... when you have children (or if you already have them), how would you feel if they demanded a car when they turn 17?

It's great if a parent decides to buy one for them... but the fact that they expect it would be fairly disheartening, wouldn't you agree?

It is a sign of being a spoiled brat if a 17 year old expected a car from their parents... and if they didn't get one asserting that their parents were bad and/or weren't doing their job.

It is the same sort of thing here. It is about getting a sense that the person you are with expects nothing more than for you to be good company.

By the way, I want you to know that I appreciate how you are discussing this with me. Civil conversation is always what I prefer. Hopefully you'll manage to get some rest before much longer.

. . . hang on . . . you WILL sometimes pay for all or most of the whole first date, but ONLY if she's poorer than you? Then what's she "investing'? How can you tell if she's a gold-digger under your standards? Or is it ok if she's a gold-digger if she has less money? And how do you even know if she has less money? Sometimes I have some idea of what my first dates make if I know what they do and it's something to which I can attach a ball-park figure from my own experience, but often I don't have a clue until I get to know them better. Do you compare W-2's?

All great points, Gail. Not surprisingly, Jason does not respond to them.

"All great points, Gail. Not surprisingly, Jason does not respond to them."

Amy... in case you haven't noticed, my posts here tend to be sort of long. While you might expect me to hit every single comment in one shot and sit here all day long ready to answer each and every question, the truth is that it isn't my job to touch on every point within a certain time limit.

Gail did two posts... I responded to the first one last night before heading out, I wasn't inclined to be late to meet up with my friends just so I could respond to post number two within the time period that you've determined for me.

Just to point out something else... I've asked multiple times how exactly you or anyone else measures the success of the method you propose versus the method I'm advocating. I haven't recieved an answer that anyone will stick by... when I thought you gave me one you ended up criticizing me for misquoting it as actually the answer to my question.

If you can't answer one question of mine over the course of 4 days, you are kind of out of line expecting me to answer every question thrown my way within 10 hours.

Gail,

With reference to your second post.

Someone way back in the thread created the following corner case scenario as an attempt to refute my position, it went something like this:

"Well the one who asks has to pay because what if the guy asks and is used to eating in 4 star restaurants all the time or flying over seas to grab dinner in paris... how can he expect his date to pick up half the bill?"

Now that wasn't exactly what they said, but it is the general gist... I recognize that as a legitimate issue (although I do question exactly why women would be so concerned with this sort of thing happening as let's be honest... most women aren't being asked out on first dates to restaurants that only serve $200+ a plate)

In the odd event that something like that does occur, I agree that it is the responsibility of the one inclined to eat that fancy to pick up the whole bill... expecting anyone else to pay their own way on a restaurant like that is unreasonable.

It isn't about checking W2 forms... it is about making a reasonable attempt to be fair, and it isn't fair for some person with millions of dollars in a trust fund and a private jet to ask someone out and expect that they are also able to afford that kind of lifestyle.

These sorts of things don't come up very often, but in the event someone wanted to use an extreme case like this to "prove" why the asker pays, my response in that scenario is that sure... when one person is expecting the other to go on a date that is beyond their affordable means, then the one with the money should pick up the tab as it was only by virtue of their super extravagant tastes that they even went on such an expensive first date.

"I've asked multiple times how exactly you or anyone else measures the success of the method you propose versus the method I'm advocating. I haven't recieved an answer that anyone will stick by... "

Actually, you have. From me, way up yonder in the blue middle of the thread. Look above for details, but in brief: for me, it led to both second dates and to relationship way more often than going dutch did.

I said something along these lines, too. I used to ask men out and pay on the first or second date, but it made men 1. devalue me, and 2. think I wasn't interested in being more than friends.

And I still don't get how you know you make way more money in the first place. If you know the person well enough to know that, you probably know them well enough to know if you want to invest in them in the first place.

By the way -- most of us advocate not going for big expensive first dates, but instead going for an inexpensive casual first date, one that anyone could afford easily, whoever pays.

Right. What do you do, request a W2 before the date?

When I met my boyfriend, he was wearing a striped, long-sleeve velour shirt with patches of the velour missing (kind of like a sad teddy bear with the mange). He also drove a terrible car -- simply because he hadn't gotten around to getting a nicer car. Let's just say he didn't look like he was printing dollar bills. It turns out he does very well -- makes more money than I do. But, I would have had no way at all to know that.

Oh yeah, and when we met, I was wearing cashmere Donna Karan pants and a Malo cashmere sweater. I'm a big bargain hunter, but if you bought what I was wearing retail, it probably would've been worth more than his old car.

"Look above for details, but in brief: for me, it led to both second dates and to relationship way more often than going dutch did."

So when the guy didn't pay for the whole thing he didn't bother to ask you out again?... or when he asked you weren't inclined to go on a second date?

I am trying to figure out if this is a self fulfilling prophecy or not because if you are the one who rejects the guys who didn't pay for everything then it is kind of guaranteed for you to be more successful in going on second dates when he foots the whole bill.

If the measure of success is going on a second date then for your test to be reasonable we have to assume that the chances of you accepting a second date are equal regardless of who paid for date number one.

If you are the one not allowing the second date to occur, then you've already biased the results.

"I used to ask men out and pay on the first or second date, but it made men 1. devalue me, and 2. think I wasn't interested in being more than friends."

From an evolutionary psychology stand point, if a woman will only be with you in a romantic setting under the conditions that you put on a rescource display she is essentially saying that you aren't good enough as a potential mate to just be accepted as you are.

A woman like that who is on a date with you might be drawn in by the money you spend on her... but all throughout dinner she'll be thinking about the hot guy in the corner who she'd rather be with in bed later.

If she has determined that you meet her criteria for a good genetic mate... she won't care about how much you spend on her on date number one.

I don't care about the W-2s or the bank statements, but I'd like evaluations from the two most recent ex-girlfriends, a statement of goals and expectations for the date and any relationship that might arise therefrom, a notarized certificate stating that he is straight, single and available, and a sworn declaration of any and all known baggage he might be carrying into the relationship.

Alas, I have a feeling it would backfire if I asked for it.

Where were we? Oh yes. Dutch treat. Seriously, Jason, your approach sounds a little complicated. I can't even say it's too business-like. In my world, business dinners are generally "who asks pays", and certainly everyone in that situation is hoping the relationship will be mutually beneficial. And as far as etiquette goes, FYI, both Miss Manners and the modern Emily Post book advocate "who asks pays" on dates.

sigh. I know Jason will want citations.

Miss Manners: see, e.g.,
http://lifestyle.msn.com/Relationships/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=418297
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/allstories-news-story.asp?date=042103&ID=s1338101
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/163119/

Emily Post Institute:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04231/363196-151.stm
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040531/news_1c31menman.html

Etiquette aside, just for laughs, here's what the website "Ask Men" has to say about who pays, and why: http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_150/190_dating_advice.html

. . . and a survey by "It's just lunch", a dating service, saying that 82% of MEN think they should pay for a first date: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/5/prweb390130.htm

I could go on, but this might be why many of us crazy chicks have the idea that offering to go dutch on a first date isn't the right idea.

"Dutch treat. Seriously, Jason, your approach sounds a little complicated."

It sounds complicated because you are the one talking about bank statements and W-2's.

I've stated already that you are making it far more complicated that it really is.

It is a simple matter to be fair and equitable... you only desire to make it seem complicated because it's not the system you prefer.

I've already stated that there is no itemization or penny counting involved... that is what you envision it to be.

What it is is a general sense that the other person wants to invest in the date... that they desire to put in more than they time, that they want to be there merely for the benefit of your company.

It is really that simple... what you are doing is creating a strawman.

You have fabricated your own argument which you believe is easier to defeat (i.e. make claims that there are itemized bills, constant splitting of each little thing, etc...) such methods of argument are fallacious.

Since you are keen on providing links, I will do the same so you can better see exactly what I am talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

I point you to the first definition where it says the following:

"Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted."

I've already stated multiple times that it is about a sense of fairness and equity... not about exact equality down to the very last penny.

"And as far as etiquette goes, FYI, both Miss Manners and the modern Emily Post book advocate "who asks pays" on dates."

Based upon that argument a man would only be obligated to pay if the woman also follows every detail presented in those etiquette books, right?

Or is that the only thing that is required and the rest is optional?

I wonder what they would say about sleeping with a man after date number 1... because we've already determined that some of the advocates for men paying also see nothing wrong with sex after the first date.

You don't get to pick and choose... if you want to go by those books, then you have to go all in... nothing half way.

Is that the argument you are prepared to make?

"I could go on, but this might be why many of us crazy chicks have the idea that offering to go dutch on a first date isn't the right idea."

There are women out there who will tell you all sorts of things related to men that just aren't true.

You'll find women and websites that claim it is impossible for a woman to rape a man... you will find women and websites that claim it is impossible for a woman to be sexist... etc.

The point is that I understand why many women believe it... I can find websites that support old earth creationism too, and some devout christians will argue with you until their dying breath that the earth is only 6000 years old.

I'll spare you me finding websites that support exactly what I am saying, but suffice it to say they exist as well.

As I said before, the popularity of a position is not what makes it valid or invalid... a position stands or falls by virtue of it's own merits.

There is no way on earth you can tell me that this expectation you have for men to always do the asking and always do the paying isn't a bum deal. You can try to cloak it in whatever clothing you want to make it seem pretty and noble, but when it comes right down to it... you can dress a moldy piece of bread in prime cuts of roast beef and it will still make you sick when you try and choke it down. It is an antiquated mode of operation that is no longer necessary in modern society. Given that I've already addressed the biological side it also can't be viewed purely as a vestigal behavior that we have to just deal with either.

"and a survey by "It's just lunch", a dating service, saying that 82% of MEN think they should pay for a first date"

I'd wager a sizable percentage of men also would say that it is worse to hit a woman than to hit a man.

What is lost in such beliefs is that it is wrong to hit anyone... period.

I'd also like to point out that roughly 20% of men dissagreeing with that sentiment isn't exactly a negligable segment of the population.

Chances are if you went back 50 years about 99% of men would agree that men should always pay.

What does that tell you?... that the trend has been to move away from that type of thinking.

I meant young earth... not old earth. Sorry if that leads to confusion.

From an evolutionary psychology stand point, if a woman will only be with you in a romantic setting under the conditions that you put on a rescource display she is essentially saying that you aren't good enough as a potential mate to just be accepted as you are.

Jason, nobody wants you just as you are. That's why there's deodorant.

More seriously speaking, you don't understand ev psych. Women look for providers. Didn't I explain this above? (More than once?)

Jason, how often do you go after homely women? With your "logic," don't you think it's only fair you judge a woman for what's within, not on the outside?

Jason, it's hardwired into our genes for men to go for beautiful women and for women to go for providers. But, I've said that. It seems only one of those big drills they used to build the Lincoln tunnel will get anything through to you.

Young Earth Christians are rather like you in ignoring evidence.

Moreover, regarding this remark: "A woman like that who is on a date with you might be drawn in by the money you spend on her... but all throughout dinner she'll be thinking about the hot guy in the corner who she'd rather be with in bed later.
If she has determined that you meet her criteria for a good genetic mate... she won't care about how much you spend on her on date number one."

Wrong. Explained why myriad times above.

"More seriously speaking, you don't understand ev psych. Women look for providers. Didn't I explain this above? (More than once?) "

Amy, as I explained before...  women do not *just* look for good providers...  they also look for good genes, it is by virtue of ignoring this very crucial fact that you are making incorrect conclusions.

Knowledge is a great thing...  but sometimes a little knowledge about a subject that is then applied in very broad terms is dangerous (we saw similar things occur when some people did cranial size studies and then other people used that to declare that certain races were inherently less intelligent because their skull volume was less...  they were wrong of course, but it takes a more sophisticated knowledge of how brains function to see that)

I know you aren't going to believe me, so instead I will defer to those who I believe any reasonable person would identify as an expert on the subject.

Where you have essentially gone wrong is by confusing the notions of genetic predisposition and genetic determinism (the concept that our genes lock us into some predetermined mode of behavior...  what you call "hard-wiring").

No expert in the field of evolutionary psychology would ever declare that our behavior patterns are genetically deterministic.  Instead they would say that our genes predispose us toward certain types of behaviors, but through interaction with the environment, particularly when we are very young, our behavior will be molded.

One of the hallmarks of evolution (any kind of evolution) is the existence of variability within the species...  you are not only declaring that this behavior is hard-wired (i.e. genetically deterministic) but that it doesn't even vary amongst the population...  that should be a clear sign that you are off track in your thinking as evolution thrives off the existence of phenotypic variation, especially in something as critical as mating behavior.

Believe me, if just about other sexual traits naturally vary from a cup to g cup or from 1 inch to 15 inches...  for you to declare that our mating behavior is without significant variation is just plain ludicrous.

Anyway, I know you aren't going to believe me...  so instead I hope you will believe the following quote:

"Every high-school graduate "knows what evolution is." But most harbor serious misconceptions: Evolution always fosters what is good for the species; because of their basis in genes, evolved traits are fixed and unresponsive to experience; species can usefully be arranged on a ladder from lower to higher. Wrong; wrong; and wrong again!"

That quote comes from a textbook written on the subject and is available here for you to see for yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Evolutionary-Steven-J-C-Gaulin/dp/0137599943/ref=pd_bbs_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198391397&sr=8-9

It is actually the very same textbook I used when I took a course on the subject back when I was in college and I highly recommend it if you are interested in seriously studying it and not just pulling interesting tid bits you've read here or there about it

Just to point something out to you... if you are declaring that I don't understand ev psych, you also have to declare that the scientists who study it for a living and are regarded as experts in the field don't understand it. After all... they are saying exactly what I have been saying all along... evolved traits are not fixed and do respond to experience (i.e. your hard-wiring theory is just plain wrong).

I know Steve Gaulin. I last saw him in June, when he was across the student center lobby registering for the Human Behavior & Evolution Society Conference at William And Mary. When he saw me, he stopped registering and came over to tell me to be sure to come to his presentation on waist-to-hip ratio -- how he'd taken Dev Singh's work further. He later e-mailed me his studies, along with his power-point presentation from HBES -- fantastic stuff on how hip fat is a different kind of fat than belly fat in a woman, and how he and Lassek found that women with hourglass figures are likely to be smarter and to have smarter children -- but I have yet to have the right question for my column to use them for. Let's just say...I understand evolutionary psychology...and I know Steve Gaulin's work firsthand. That said, I don't "defer" to others -- ie, let others ("experts"!) do my thinking for me. A good thing, too, because there's plenty of shoddy work by "experts" in peer-reviewed journals.

You clearly do not understand evolutionary psychology, and you have yet to answer my question with how you've overcome your hardwiring to go for "beauty" -- the characteristics that would have helped your ancestors' genes survive in the Pleistocene -- and instead are most attracted to menopausal women with bad skin, thick waists, dull, short gray hair, and all you care about is a woman's winning personality. You get around that by interaction with your environment?

And yes, there are exceptions out there -- for example, a few tall women who will date short men, and maybe are even attracted to them. They are not the majority. Most people fall within the lines of what research predicts they will -- for example, as Dev Singh showed, men across cultures prefer women with a .7 waist-to-hip ratio. Women go for providers. Whether or not they have ample incomes themselves. In fact, those with ample incomes and power go for more powerful men.

I'll quote Satoshi Kanazawa, another evolutionary psychologist I know, who told me the following on the phone:

Evolutionary psychology as a science is not yet at the level of experimental physics. We can’t explain everybody. We only explain the general patterns. And the average man.

Generalizations, yes, but they are generally true.

Look, be a cheapskate if you want. I'm not going to advise other men do that -- I'm going to tell them they diminish their chances with women; they shrink their potential mate market probably by a great deal if they petty up like you do. (You paid for the coat check? Woohooo! Put you out a whole $2, huh?) And men who chintz out like you do are in no way guaranteeing they won't end up with a gold digger. (Surely, you've read about deception in your vast studies in the field.) But, they sure won't end up with Gail or me or any number of women who are of a level where we can afford to be choosy about the men we date.

Like Gail, I'm wondering why you didn't write the girl a check at the end of the date for your fair share. As dividing the check is so crucially important to you. Perhaps I can advise you as to where you can get a jeweler's saw so you can divide it down to the half penny, should the final number turn out to be odd.

To educate you on what women want, an excellent book by David Buss, The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating

I'm guessing you have ample time to read on weekends, and should thus finish it in no time.

Actually, I've got nothing else to say on the date thing. (Jason, seriously -- I answered your question on "why there was no second date", etc. etc. Scroll way back up and read it if you want to know what I said.)

I'm only posting because Jason bashed Miss Manners as antiquated, and asked if I'd "follow every detail presented in those etiquette books". Um, yeah, actually, I totally would. I adore Miss Manners. FYI, Miss Manners doesn't have a word to say about whether people should sleep with each other on the first date. She wouldn't think of prying. If she were going to weigh in on that topic, she'd probably discuss whether it is rude to go home right after sex, and who gets the wet spot if you spend the night. And by the way, I don't generally advocate sex on the first date, and neither does Amy.

Hey everyone, the good news is that I'm getting on a plane in a couple of hours to go away from the holidays, which means -- hurray!-- that I'm really going to shut up this time. Have a great week.

You've been great, Gail. A voice of reason. P.S. I'm a big fan of Miss Manners.

FYI, my reasons for advising against sex on the first date for anyone who's looking for a relationship aren't due to prudery, but again, to what tends to be the most successful strategy.

"A good thing, too, because there's plenty of shoddy work by "experts" in peer-reviewed journals."

Yeah... those shoddy experts with their education and degrees... who needs to listen to people like that.

Listen Amy, there are physicists and there are people who watch a show on the discovery channel and suddenly think they've got modern physics all figured out.

I posted a quote from a book composed by an expert in the field... one that no other expert in the field would claim was "shoddy" or didn't know what they were talking about.

As I said before... your belief here is no different than that of a fundamentalist, no amount of actual science will dissuade you from what you want to be true.

Racists do the same thing all the time to "prove" that the group they do not like is inferior to them... they also don't listen to experts and think they are better capable of interpreting the evidence.

"You clearly do not understand evolutionary psychology, and you have yet to answer my question with how you've overcome your hardwiring to go for "beauty""

There is no such thing as hardwiring when it comes to such a higher level function.

Pretty much the only things that are hardwired into our genes are the sorts of biological traits we share with single celled organisms... those are the only traits that are essentially "fixed".

So far as your "hardwiring" for beauty goes, here is a quick example of where you have gone wrong... stepping back 200 years or so the attractive feature of the day was utterly pale skin... being tan wasn't considered attractive at all because it was associated with having to work in the fields. Flash forward to modern era, being pale is not considered attractive and being tan is hot... why?... because now being tan is indicative of you having the time to just lay around in the sun and relax.

If we were "hardwired" we would either be stuck in loving pale people or tan people... it wouldn't change based upon the environmental factors at play such as which trait is indicative of someone who has more free time on their hands.

The reason I haven't answered your question is because it is non-cogent.

I might as well ask for you to give me the radius of a square and declare that if you are unable to that you do not understand geometry... we aren't "hardwired" for anything in terms of behavior... we are genetically predisposed toward certain behaviors but it is adaptable within certain constraints.

So far as answering questions, you are very quick to be critical if I don't seem to respond to one of yours fast enough... yet you've managed to entirely ignore two of mine relating to why you don't go on second dates in what you consider to be the unsuccessful method... I suppose I shouldn't be surprised about the double standard though as apparenty you also have a double standard about who is supposed to take evidence into account (apparently you don't need to bother with that sort of thing).

"
Evolutionary psychology as a science is not yet at the level of experimental physics. We can’t explain everybody. We only explain the general patterns. And the average man.

Generalizations, yes, but they are generally true. "

The general patterns aren't even close to 100%... What they explain is known as a gaussian distribution (most people call it a bell curve). In that sort of a scenario a very significant portion of the population is outside of one standard deviation.

What you call "generally true" only applies to about 60%... you don't just get to cut out 40% of the people on the planet and act like their perspective is unimportant to your point and then call something "hardwired".

To make things simpler... the average height of a man in america is around 5'10''... what you are saying is the equivalant of "men are hardwired to be 5'10''" just because that happens to be the average trait... then you ignore the fact that there are millions of men over 6'2'' and millions under 5'6''.

"Like Gail, I'm wondering why you didn't write the girl a check at the end of the date for your fair share."

I don't think Gail is wondering that as I suspect that she read my answer... you on the other hand don't have to be bothered by a pesky little thing like reading or stuff like that... you just "know" the answers better than the so called experts anyway. I will save you the trouble of finding my answer and just quote it for you here:

"I want to be clear here, "making up for it" wasn't to mean that I covered some financial debt because there wasn't any."

In case that wasn't clear enough... by the time we went home there was no difference... the difference existed at the time the tickets were purchased, not at the time the date ended.

"Actually, I've got nothing else to say on the date thing. (Jason, seriously -- I answered your question on "why there was no second date", etc. etc. Scroll way back up and read it if you want to know what I said.)"

Since Amy agreed with what you said the question was more general than meant to be specifically answered by you. I apologize if there was confusion on that front.

"FYI, Miss Manners doesn't have a word to say about whether people should sleep with each other on the first date. She wouldn't think of prying."

Of course she wouldn't pry into peoples personal lives... according to you she only determines what people should be doing with their money... and how they should behave on dates, none of that stuff would be considered prying, right?... The truth is however that dating and money are also private matters, if she's willing to weigh in on those subjects I see no reason why she would be averse to offering her opinion on other matters.

What do you think she would say about your propensity to heavily flirt until the guy asks instead of asking yourself?

You said you would follow whatever she said, so I will hold you to your word. Something tells me though that someone who is an expert in etiquette wouldn't advocate behavior like that as it isn't very demure.

I am all for good manners, and being respectful of others, in fact I think that is critically important. That being said, like you I am someone who likes consistency... if you are willing to adhere to everything this Miss Manners says, then I am willing to take your argument that she says something on this topic as reasonable.

I just wanted to avoid being stuck accepting her opinion as evidence if on other matters you were willing to toss what she has to say out the window.

I hope you have a great trip by the way... I'm flying to where it is sunny and warm as well later today.

Gail,

I decided to do some checking to see if Miss Manners had anything to say with regard to flirting... and indeed she does. Here it is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/14/AR2006021401914.html

What she says is the following: "For example, you stare at him too long and soulfully, and then look away as if you had hardly known what you were doing. You sit too close to him, and then idly get up and sit somewhere else. You brush up against him as if you had not noticed that you did."

Here is what you said about being flirtateous to get a man to ask you out:

"I don't initiate first dates anymore either because that also backfired on me. Now I flirt like hell until the guy asks me out."

So long as your "flirting like hell" only includes soulful stares and sitting close to him... then you're alright... otherwise you would have essentially violated what she has to say on the subject.

If that is what you mean by flirt like hell I don't find it nearly as objectionable as I did before as it is fairly innocent flirtation... but forgive me if when I hear someone say that they "flirt like hell" I don't interpret it as something significantly less refined and dignified than what Miss Manners is talking about (i.e. wearing low cut dresses and leaning over his desk to ask if the package he's got there is for you... or other kinds of sexually charged verbal exchanges).

As best as I can tell, Miss Manners limits all flirtation to the realm of something that can be easily denied after the fact... so if what you are doing is too obvious then you are not in keeping with the spirit of her advice on the subject.

Gail,

One final note before I pack.

I've been reading through your links by the way as well as what else Miss Manners has to say and to be quite honest I really like her.

In one of your links however there is something you seem to have missed.

"What is fair -- and has always been considered so, as generations of graduates from female educational institutions can attest -- is for the person who issued the invitation to bear the cost. That gentlemen once issued more invitations than ladies cannot be used as an excuse to reduce a hostess's expenses."

This was in regard to a young lady contemplating asking a guy out to her prom.

So far as Miss Manners is aware, she has no clue whether or not the pair has ever dated before which suggests to me that she has absolutely no problem with a girl/woman asking a man out on date number 1.

Otherwise she would likely request more information regarding how long they have been together... but to her it didn't matter.

In otherwords, it suggests that Miss Manners would not advocate your position of refusing to ask men out first and only flirting to get them to do the asking.

From everything i've read I am left to conclude that she would suggest flirting to see if the guy flirts back... and if he does then the proper thing to do would be to ask him out, not to keep flirting until he takes the bait.

Feel free to write her and ask though, I'd bet she'd say if you like the guy you shouldn't adamantly refuse to be the one to ask him out on date number one.

That is ultimately my main problem with your strategy, you aren't using flirtation to test the waters which is the subtle and dignified kind of flirting that Miss Manners is talking about, you are using flirtation to get the guy to do the asking... and by saying that you "flirt like hell" until he does, it makes it seem like you keep upping the ante in terms of flirtation until it happens or until you're convinced he just won't ask you out. This really doesn't strike me as the kind of behavior Miss Manners would advocate... she would probably just suggest that if he flirts back you are safe to offer an invitation of your own.

Needless to say, I think your approach requires adjustment based upon the fact that it probably isn't Miss Manners approved.

As a side note... she does have something to say about sex on date number one, but she uses the euphemism of "affection" and basically states that dates consist of food, entertainment, and affection... date number one should be heavy on the entertainment and light on the affection... by the time the affection becomes the entertainment you are no longer dating.

Needless to say if more men/women thought like this lady the world would be a MUCH better place.

Also Gail... so far as your position and mine are concerned... we only really differ on how we see date number 1. The rest of the relationship you and I are pretty much in 100% agreement.

I believe that the dating couple should split date number one and then alternate from there on out.

You believe that the man should pay for date number one and then alternate from there on out.

Miss Manners seems to believe that whoever asks for date number 1 (i.e. it doesn't have to be the man) pays for the first date and then it continues with whoever offers the invitation under the premis that it should pretty much alternate.

Our perspectives really aren't as far apart as you might think... we really only dissagree about date number 1.

Amy, I don't often get to the comment section of your column (didn't know what I was missing). But I am hoping that Jason is an infrequent poster. Say it's so! I'm afraid to come back. Maybe this was a rare visit and he'll move on to someone else's site. Your patience is amazing. Happy Christmas. And I hope he doesn't read this, or we're in for another ramble.

My God, I don’t visit Amy’s column for a couple of weeks and look what happens! Sorry to be a little late to the party but after spending the past nearly two hours reading the many posts I would like to add my few Jonny-Come-Lately cents….

I can actually see the respective logic and benefits of most people’s positions here. I can honestly say that in reading the positions of the major discussers of this thread, that I learned something from each.

At the risk of this sounding like a bit of a cop-out, I will say that in the end everyone will do what works for them, dating-wise, male and female. It’s a good thing we live in a free society, one in which all approaches to dating that don’t harm others and are mutually agreed upon by consenting adults are tolerated.

Jason’s main point is that there are a significant and possibly growing minority of people of both genders who will much prefer to adopt his equality-based methods. Perhaps Amy’s advice ought to reflect that a bit in the future to other letter writers. Forgive my audacity, but I guess that am thinking along the lines of statements like “If you want the best results from the first date (meaning a second one and a third), you should pay if you are the inviter regardless of gender, and you may want to take the initiative in setting up said date if you are a man. But if you feel it is appropriate to do things a bit differently in certain circumstances, then alternatives like the woman asking or offering to split the bill or leave the tip on date #1 have been known to work as well.” Of course what gets said will be entirely contextual to the topic and the writer’s question, but to always adopt a one-size-fits-all approach is not necessarily useful to certain letter writers.

Jason, I have to state that I agree a great deal with your mutualistic and fair-minded techniques that adapt to the specific person and circumstance, and I think you are a very smart guy. I really like the fact that you have kept this discussion logical and polite, if a little rambling at times. (Not that I don’t do that myself, so it’s not a drawback in my opinion necessarily, but it clearly is for others.) You don’t date other men by any chance, do you? Oops, I’m manipulating! :-)

______________________________________________________________

Regarding evolution and mate selection in nature, there are a staggering variety of reproductive and social organization strategies between creatures, all with the same end goal of perpetuating the species. They all work by virtue of the fact that they exist and serve the prime directive of long-term population survival for the type in question. Therefore to say that one species’ reproductive strategy is superior to another, or permanently set in stone, would be biologically false. Not only that, it would also be an inaccurate repudiation of the other very basic concept of evolution, which is that is it oriented to change and diversification over time.

Let me expand on that: Evolution has two types of trends, which might at first seem contradictory and at odds with one-another but in fact are inherently compatible from a long-term perspective. Trend one is towards enduring stability, meaning that what works for the continuation of the species (survival of the fittest = the ability to successfully breed) will continue to be utilized because it has survival value. Trend two is towards the innovation of new methods conjoined with the exploitation of any new niches that might arise as a result of changing conditions.

BOTH forces are at work in evolution over the long run. This is why in humans today we see both a predilection for men to behave a certain way and women another where dating is concerned (Amy’s position), AND a diversification away from set roles for either one once conditions change enough to allow for experimentation and adaptive tinkering (Jason’s position).

It is important to note that BOTH are correct ways of handling things, especially given today’s sociological realities, which are allowing for greater freedom from the pressures of meeting basic survival needs only. Today's social climate is allowing for much more testing of the boundaries of gender roles and the functions of marriage, relationships, and child-rearing than were ever possible under most hand-to-mouth hunter-gatherer or agrarian societal systems. Amy herself is an example of this, as are Gail, KG, and others – women who feel no need or desire to get married, or in some cases necessarily bear children, in or out of wedlock.

______________________________________________________________

Back to biology for a moment, however…. Reproduction and mate selection covers every imaginable color in the spectrum. From orgiastically-spawning-and-then-dying salmon to lifelong-mating albatrosses, it is all represented in the natural kingdom.

A short but broad list of examples: Male seahorses rear their young in a belly pouch where the female lays eggs, and the female has zero to do with care and rearing of the youngsters after the eggs are laid. Many creatures leave their offspring totally alone from birth or as eggs, as in corals and many fish, for example. In contrast some mammals spend years or even decades (like elephants and whales, not to mention humans) rearing their young. Males are not always dominant, as in matrilineally-organized naked mole rats, some baboons, and social insects like bees and ants, whose complex colonies are virtually entirely female. Courtship rituals can be amazingly elaborate, as in birds of paradise and sage grouse, or they can just as easily be nonexistent, as in promiscuous house sparrows and starlings.

We have hermaphroditism (male and female sex organs in the same individual) in earthworms, and female parthenogenesis in some lizards, which means that males don’t even exist and that the females that give birth truly are virgins. Sea anemones and hydras can clone themselves asexually like plant offsets, as well as reproduce sexually. And it ought to be mentioned that homosexual activity to some extent has been documented in nearly 1500 different species from every major class of life, thereby totally negating the theological idea that somehow it is “against nature”. NOTHING is really against nature in the end, because an example of it already exists somewhere. To be sure some types are definite minorities, but they do exist nonetheless.

Even closely related species can vary widely in their behaviors – most felines, for example, are solitary animals (like tigers and leopards, for example), but there is a major exception – lions, which live in groups called prides. And lions and tigers and leopards are genetically closely related enough to hybridize, although under natural conditions they generally would not do this. But the point is that there are exceptions to every rule.

________________________________________________________________

The point of this evolutionary discussion is that just about any type of reproductive strategy and mate-selection process is found in the natural world. This diversity of beingness with regard to mate selection, family units, and social organization can also be applied to humanity, especially when sociocultural influences are factored in.

I think that Jason’s point would be that to say that men and women ought to mostly behave a certain way for best success is absolutely not going to work out for a certain percentage of the population. It might well work out for a majority, a la the contentiousness we have seen here in this thread, but to dismiss the natural and obvious diversity of human responses and motives as “hard-wired” to be a certain way only is fallacious.

Humans are indeed predisposed to certain types of behavior; but they clearly are not totally bound to it, and allowances need to be made for that. Advice columnists, being in a position of somewhat elevated authority by simple virtue of having been solicited for their opinions to begin with by a letter writer, might do well to consider the minority position at times in addition to recommending the majority, most-likely course of action. I suggest that this might have been one of those times. I believe that this is what Jason’s stripped-down point would be. Jason can correct me if this is wrong….

I recently read an interesting article that indicates that humans are actually physically evolving more quickly today than ever before. This might seem contrary to logic given the leveling forces of globalization and the decline and even extinction of many smaller cultures, languages, and ethnicities. But the theory is that with humanity’s population having surged to such high numbers (well over 6.5 billion to date) that there are actually ever more opportunities for mutations to occur, mutations that might, eventually, give rise to significantly different humans given several hundred thousand years of evolution. Assuming we live that long as a species.

If we factor in other ecological influences such as the artificial mutagenic and teratogenic chemicals we create, the mobility of humans across wide geographical expanses, intermarriage between cultures and races, and better nutrition and medicinal care resulting in lower infant mortality rates, it might be reasonable to conclude that indeed physical evolution might be sped up beyond that which we have normally seen as a “background” rate.

Therefore, what is to say that we cannot evolve significantly different social behaviors as well? Who says that it all need to be tied to “hard-wired” issues rooted in the past? Improvising new and more effective ways to capitalize upon new niches is what evolutionary biology is all about in the rest of the natural world. So why not humanity too?

Note once again that I am not suggesting that there are not predispositions instilled in us by biology, because there clearly are. What I’ll bring it back down to is that diversity rules, and in the end humans have a great deal more conscious control over their actions than sometimes they care to accept, thanks to our capacities for complex social organization. Never say never, nor always. To reiterate, thank God we live in a free society.

Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, and a successful 2008 to all!

Jon, you're really Jason posting under another name, right? There can't be two of you.

Nope, I am a different person.

I had a lovely holiday and am shocked this thread is still alive. Great stuff Gail. When I need a lawyer......

I had to comment on this though:

"So far as my response to kg... I think you are way off base if you think I was patronizing in any way to her. In her previous post she refered to me as "jase" and "baby"... two patronizing pet names that really aren't appropriate to this discussion. You want to call my response patronizing?... so be it... but I'll remind you that didn't call her "toots" or any other such patronizing term as she refered to me."

Toots???? Toots???? what is that? Someone would use this as a PATRONIZING term? And mine were not "Pet Names" I can assure you. I think you could call it "writing voice" if anything. Crybaby.

Very interesting stuff, Jon. I think when Amy talks about "hard-wiring," she is referring to basic reactions or instincts about things. Of course people change with the times. What is attractive now may not be attractive in the future, but I don't think that it will ever change that men are drawn to (whatever is considered) attractive people. I think women will always want a man who appears to be able to protect her, even if she doesn't need to be protected. My take is that a man who is going to make a big deal out of thirty bucks seems weak minded to me. I can say that Jason is putting money at the forefront in terms of dating (and the potential for relationships) and he can say I am. Either way it makes sense. Some people think sitting in prison for one's whole life is a worse punishment than being put to death by the government. Some the other way around. Neither one is right or wrong. The point is that if a person really wants a better chance at a longer relationship, the guy should ask and pay on the first date. The majority of people feel doing otherwise is unwise. It's simple Math.

I guess my best-beloved and I are doing something wrong, then. When I go out with her, she usually does the driving, and pays for dinner. Of course, to get to see her I have to drive over 1000 miles, which she thinks absolves me of more driving---also, she knows the area (Northern Virginia, which was laid out by the town drunk, I think) far better than I do.

"I think that Jason’s point would be that to say that men and women ought to mostly behave a certain way for best success is absolutely not going to work out for a certain percentage of the population. It might well work out for a majority, a la the contentiousness we have seen here in this thread, but to dismiss the natural and obvious diversity of human responses and motives as “hard-wired” to be a certain way only is fallacious."

Bingo :)

Thank you Jon for actually understanding what I was getting at. It has been fairly difficult trying to get across that no evolutionary psychologist would ever even think of suggesting that we are "hard-wired" for any type of behavior... it is merely predisposition toward a certain type of behavior with a distribution of other behaviors set around that average.

The problem comes in when we begin to think of the average value as universal... it isn't.

The same way we can look at a distribution of test scores and say that the average is 80... that doesn't mean that everyone in the class got an 80 on the test. In fact that would be very odd indeed if the class size was very large (as is the case with the entire human population).

An interesting anology I thought of after reading your post would be the following.

A homosexual man writes in and explains a problem he is having getting a functional relationship with another man he likes... then the advice he recieves is essentially "get with the program buddy... men are "hardwired" to like women... so if you want a relationship you had better give up being gay". That is equivilant to what this guy was told "stop wanting any sort of equal contribution... get with your genetic programming".

Now clearly the majority of men are only sexually interested in women... but to ignore the homosexual segment of the population and act like they do not exist because they do not demonstrate the "average" behavior is not only irresponsible, but is also a categorically flawed methodology.

Let's be honest here... if men aren't universally "hard-wired" to desire sex with women... what do you suppose the odds are that women are universally "hard-wired" to only desire men who pay for the entire first date? In terms of evolutionary selection pressures, the first would be enforced in the population far more powerfully than the second. Therefore since we see the first is false (i.e. gay men do exist)... then the second proposition must invariable be even more incorrect.

I don't particularly mind Amy stating her opinion on this matter, I may dissagree but her opinion is a valid one just like anyone elses... where I take offense is when she then steps over the line and not only states her opinion... but attempts to establish it as "fact" with the support of the scientific community. In that respect she is 100% wrong.

Also Jon... no, I do not date men... but I do appreciate your well thought out post and hope you enjoy the holiday's.

I fully agree with the hardwiring comment from Amy. There is absolutely no way I would/could date a guy who wanted me to pay or split any bills. It would be a major turn-off and place him in the "loser" category.

Paying is the gentlemanly thing to do, it indicates class. My wonderful boyfriend of 8 yrs has always paid for everything and absolutely would not have it any other way.

Reading these emotional rants from angry, icky guys who are fussing about paying for dinner??? is not only quite amazing to me but makes me realize even more how very very lucky I am and how incredibly rare my boyfriend must be.

kg,

"Toots???? Toots???? what is that? Someone would use this as a PATRONIZING term? And mine were not "Pet Names" I can assure you. I think you could call it "writing voice" if anything. Crybaby."

It isn't actually a word I knew the spelling of as it isn't something I typically use or spell out... furthermore I was unable to locate it in the dictionary. Suffice it to say the word does exist, try sounding it out as a mixture between toots and tuts and you'll know the word I am refering to. And yes, if someone called you that, chances are it would be in a patronizing manner.

As for you calling me Jase and baby... let's make one thing very clear. You and I are not close friends, nor are we familiar enough to start refering to eachother as honey, sweetie, baby, sugar... or any other such name. You can call it "writing voice" if you wish, but if that is the case then your writing voice needs an upgrade. If you want to refer to me, call me Jason... just as I have refereed to everyone else here by name and not inappropriately familiar terms.

As for being a "crybaby", let's get another thing straight... Gail accused me of being patronizing to you after you refered to me as Jase and baby. My response that you have quoted was used to illustrate that if she wanted to criticize someone for being patronizing she should have focused her attention elsewhere. If you want me to treat you with respect then you must treat me with respect... it is a two way street. You don't get to refer to me in those terms and expect me to be completely complacent.

"The point is that if a person really wants a better chance at a longer relationship, the guy should ask and pay on the first date. The majority of people feel doing otherwise is unwise. It's simple Math."

Well that right there is the difference between where you and I are comming from. You are looking at better odds of a longer relationship... I am looking at better odds of a better relationship.

By better relationship I mean where both people involved share and support one another.

The majority of people aren't involved in relationships composed of equal sharing and care for one another... most people are involved in relationships involving one person as the "taker" and the other as the "giver". Needless to say, a good proportion of people aren't completely satisfied with that sort of relationship long term (they might deal with it and stick with it... but they aren't exactly happy about it).

So how do we enhance our odds of finding a relationship where there is a spirit of reciprocity?... by making sure that both parties are on that same page right from the beginning.

Maybe you are primarily interested in long relationships, and that is good for you... but I and many others are primarily interested in good relationships, and that isn't a negative either.

Outside of our dissagreement on this subject kg, I hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season :)

So how do we enhance our odds of finding a relationship where there is a spirit of reciprocity?... by making sure that both parties are on that same page right from the beginning.

Spirit of reciprocity? Is that how you put it? I suspect you're petrified that a woman will take advantage of you and there's an adding machine on at all times in your head. Fun! Verrry sexy!

There's a certain kind of guy who's always worried he's going to get cheated, and let's just say it's not a manly quality. This isn't to say it's manly to get cheated - actual men figure out who's a scammergirl without having to nickel and dime women when the check comes.

My heat's off, and I was upset about it, and my boyfriend offered to pay for a hotel for me for the week. (He was in Detroit, I was back in Los Angeles.) I can't have him do that -- it's really expensive, and not his responsibility. But, it's the kind of guy he is that he'd offer, and I just love that.

And my landlord, who's a good guy but is away, didn't know his guy didn't come Monday, as planned, but he's on it now to replace my heater.

Jason:

Your analogy about gay men seeking relationships is spot-on. Indeed, to say that if they want a relationship, they should act according to what the “hard wiring” of the majority of the population is and start to date heterosexual women might sound like logical advice, but it in fact ignores the primary crux of the issue for the gay male – he seeks relationships with other men, not women! So advice needs to be adjusted accordingly to have any merit.

While it is true that as a percentage of the population heterosexuals far outnumber homosexuals, to say that if gays want to increase their odds of a relationship they should move to dating the opposite sex because it is a much larger pool isn’t worthwhile, meaningful advice that they can use. Better in that case to advise the gay man (or lesbian, etc) to do something that actually works for their situation, rather than just say, “Statistically speaking you’d be much better off finding a female to date than another male.” True, perhaps, but not useful and not pertinent.

______________________________________________________________

A few years ago I read a book about the way certain nonhuman primate societies are structured, and in this discussion thread it reminds me that the most aggressive, “typical” males are not the only ones who manage to sire offspring and find social success.

Some female baboons (there are several species, and I forget which one) select the most dominant, aggressive males to breed with, in no small part thanks to his coercion. But other females strongly prefer the more egalitarian males and reject the advances of the alpha male in favor of the beta male, one who better understands the need for diplomacy over raw force.

Baboon societies, which are generally organized along female family ties and ranks, have a strong component of both types of sexual selection present in the same troop. There are both aggressive alpha males and the females that prefer them, and the gentler beta males and the females that opt for those.

Diversity in baboon social behavior is thought to have evolutionary advantages for the entire troop. Aggressive and dominant males actually help defend the troop against predators, but their behavior is frequently overbearing to the females and youngsters, particularly to those youngsters they are not genetically related to. The most antagonistic males are usually, shall we say, socially inept and tend to respond to many situations with brute force even when it is not called for. They are poor at sharing food and are prone to violence that includes bullying everyone and infanticide of unrelated babies.

This means that alpha male baboons spend a good deal of time on the troop margins. They are somewhat ostracized thanks to their hostility, and hence end up turning their attention to watching for predators and dangers, rather than indulging in the important social and grooming behavior that strengthens family and friendship ties. Their social ineptness marginalizes them – but they are very good at vigilance and defending the troop against attacks, so they are tolerated.

By contrast the beta males, those that are less aggressive and more cooperative, also serve troop social and material needs, and there are many females who prefer their company over the alphas. They might be smaller and less able to defend the troop against leopard attacks, but they fit much more readily into the matrilineal social framework and are better at sharing food with females and helping care for unrelated infants. They generally are appreciated by a significant percentage of the female troop members, even though conflicts with the jealous alpha males (who are commonly rebuffed by females in their belligerence) are common.

This social adeptness leads to breeding success for the beta males too. If my memory serves me, it is actually pretty close to 50-50. Males that defend against dangers via their aggression are important to the overall troop, as are the males who participate in the touchy-feely, sharing stuff that makes for powerful social ties that also have distinct survival value for the overall troop. BOTH strategies are important to baboon society, and this is why both types of males exist and why both have breeding success within the female-driven social networks of that world.

I bring up these examples to show that primate behavior is complex and well-organized and cannot be determined to fall solely within one set of parameters. Humans are the most complex of all primates, and as with baboons, there are “alpha” males and the females that prefer them, and “beta” males and the females that prefer them. Neither one is “better” or “more successful” at breeding. Both exist, and both are successful strategies in a variable world. This applies to the individuals in question, as well as the larger human “troop”.

______________________________________________________________

For the record, I think that it is appropriate on a first date to offer to help with the tab, but to let the person who did the inviting do the paying. I find people who squabble over a few dollars and demand penny-pinching equality unappealing and would probably not date them a second time.

I find people who offer to pay appealing, even if I end up footing the bill as the inviter, because I think it is the appropriate thing to do. It indicates a willingness to consider the other person’s perspective, and that is important. What matters to me is the gesture of equality and consideration. I think it is a good indicator of mutuality in a person’s character, and since I seek that in my relationships, I watch for such signs.

Ironically, nickel-and-diming is NOT a good indicator of equality – it indicates selfishness and unwillingness to share, a trait I find as unappetizing as many female baboons do.

Overly-aggressive alpha male behavior is not that alluring to me either, for the same reason – it indicates a selfish obsession with rank, status, or control, and that is not something I seek. For those who do, well, more power to you. Just don’t assume that all us baboons operate on exactly the same set of parameters….

So Jason, I agree that you should go about dating females in the way you find useful. Know that your egalitarian behavioral traits are well-established in other primate societies, not only in the baboons I have been discussing, but in chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, spider monkeys, and more. BOTH types of behavior are found amongst males and females in primate social groups, and BOTH offer advantages and drawbacks. The same goes for every other person here, male or female, of whatever orientation or persuasion.

Third time now: Thank God we live in a free society where we can all fulfill our needs and wishes for relationships that best suit our inherent personality traits.

Happy 2008!

Amy,

You may not see your stance on this issue as markedly hypocritical, but it really is. I have tried to underscore it as best I could in the hopes that you would see the light and understand that you are comming at this issue from an entirely wrong angle.

I will try once more with the following approach under the assumption that some people are only able to empathize when they are put into a situation themselves.

Let us suppose that instead of the letter you recieved from the man above you recieved a letter from a woman. Let us further assume that the letter went something like this:

"As a single female, I find something extremely repulsive. More and more, contraceptives allow men and women the opportunity to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Yet, on dates, when I eventually bring up the fact that I do not ever desire to have children, these men conveniently lose my number..."

I've tried to model this after the original as best I can to illustrate a point.

I very much doubt that your advice to fictional this woman would be to "deal with it" and accept her biologically determined role as a mother because men are "hard-wired" to want to breed.

Instead you would probably tell her that while many men do desire to have a family... there are some men out there who are like minded to her and desire to remain childless.

You wouldn't attempt to enforce upon this woman some contrived concept of bending to the will of the "average man" just so she can increase her chances of having a relationship... you would instead strive to explain to her that her convictions may limit her choices, but that she has a right to her standards and shouldn't just give them up so she gets more dates.

I know you would give this sort of advice to her based upon your recent blog... and I quote:

"
Okay, some men, even many men, don't want ultra-brainy girls, or women with big jobs. Okay, so if you're an ultra-brainy girl or a woman with a big job...don't date those guys!

I'm reminded of my lone visit to a shrink when I was in my 30's and having little luck finding a guy I wanted to go on more than one date with. The shrink said, best as I can recall, "You have high standards, you understand and accept the consequences of those high standards, this is healthy, I have nothing else I can say to you, don't come back." "

Notice how you don't advocate giving up your standards even though they reduce your odds of being compatible with the average joe... so why do you advocate that men reduce their standards just so they can be more compatible with the average jane?

Desiring a mate who will treat you with equality and fairness... someone who doesn't expect to recieve more than she gives isn't some obnoxious desire... it is a legitimate standard that I believe men are entitled to.

You are entitled to your standards Amy... and I would not try to tell you that you need to change your ways to fit with the average man... so stop trying to tell men they need to change their standards to fit with some average female behavior they aren't particularly interested in.

Unless you are willing to give up your standards so you conform to the desires of the average man, you have no right to demand that men give up their standards to conform to the desires of the average woman... there are lots of women out there who aren't looking for some guy to foot the bill while they sit there and offer nothing other than their company... many of then actually want to contribute to the relationship in ways other than just being present.

Jon,

"I find people who offer to pay appealing, even if I end up footing the bill as the inviter, because I think it is the appropriate thing to do. It indicates a willingness to consider the other person’s perspective, and that is important. What matters to me is the gesture of equality and consideration. I think it is a good indicator of mutuality in a person’s character, and since I seek that in my relationships, I watch for such signs."

This is exactly how I feel about it... it is a good method to measure how any relationship that might result from it will evolve. Someone who is willing to contribute on date 1 is also someone who is likely to be fair and equitable in other ways over the entire course of the relationship. That is a huge positive in my book.

Also, for the record... I've never advocated any sort of nickle/diming stragegy. That whole bit has been a strawman set up to rebuff my position as it is easier to show that being a penny pincher is an undesirable trait than it is to actually refute my less extreme stance than I look for women who offer to split the bill. Looking for someone who makes it clear that equity is on their mind is very different than sitting there with a calculator itemizing everything so you can present your date with a bill before you leave. I don't support the penny pincher model... but no matter how much I say it, those who dissagree with me keep tossing it up as if that is my position.

Sunny,

"Paying is the gentlemanly thing to do, it indicates class. My wonderful boyfriend of 8 yrs has always paid for everything and absolutely would not have it any other way."

So if he were to lose his job or fall upon hard times financially would he be any less wonderful or less of a gentleman? Would he lose value in your eyes even after 8 years if his wallet were to run dry and became an icky loser who couldn't foot the bill for you every time?

My position is that if he is wonderful, it has nothing to do with how much he pays for dinner... if he is wonderful it is because of the numerous other qualities he possesses. If you measure his value based upon his ability or willingness to pay for things for you then you don't actually love him... you love his bank account.

There is a great deal more to being a gentleman than being a walking atm machine... in fact that is the absolute least of it. In addition, if he is doing his traditional job of paying for everything as the "gentleman" are you doing your traditional job as the "lady" and remaining virtuous until he asks you to marry him?... something tells me that in the modern age with an 8 year relationship that would be unlikely.

If you can toss the notion of the traditional lady out the window, then it is fair game to redefine the notion of the traditional gentleman.

Ultimately you don't just get to pick and choose the items you like and toss out the items that are inconvenient.

I am glad you and your boyfriend are doing so well... but I hope that what makes him wonderful are the many qualities he has that have nothing to do with money.

Notice how you don't advocate giving up your standards even though they reduce your odds of being compatible with the average joe... so why do you advocate that men reduce their standards just so they can be more compatible with the average jane?

I can afford my standards. Many guys aren't going to be interested in diminishing their chances of success by quibbling about who pays -- or being so low class as to invite somebody out and then expect them to foot the bill. Ick.

If you want to chisel about who pays on a date, be my guest. There are numerous women here -- me included -- who would not go out on a second date with you, and not because we're gold diggers or expect a man to pay our way in a relationship.

You have yet to detail how you've overcome your evolutionary hard-wiring to go for attractive women and are instead dating hags with great personalities.

Amy,

"I can afford my standards. Many guys aren't going to be interested in diminishing their chances of success by quibbling about who pays -- or being so low class as to invite somebody out and then expect them to foot the bill. Ick."

No one is suggesting that you quibble about who pays... no one is suggesting that you invite someone out and then expect them to foot the bill.

These are positions you have fabricated since my actual point is much more difficult to dispute.

Here is my position... on date number one, a good indicator of whether or not the person you are out with is interested in constructing a relationship based upon mutual sharing and cooperation is whether or not they offer to split the bill. If they do not offer they still might be interested in equity in other areas of the relationship, but the odds are much lower.

As a result if someone doesn't offer (notice I say offer... there is no coersion or pressure implied here) then I just don't bother asking them out on a second date.

It is simple as that... no argument, no penny pinching... just a pleasant evening followed by no phone call from me ever again. It has nothing to do with anger as I have no ill feelings toward women like that... I'm just not interested in them.

I can afford my standards too... when I want to go out on a date I go on one, i'm not exactly hard up for companionship.

"If you want to chisel about who pays on a date, be my guest. There are numerous women here -- me included -- who would not go out on a second date with you, and not because we're gold diggers or expect a man to pay our way in a relationship."

This part is what I find most interesting... you keep attempting to put me on the rejection side of things... that *you* wouldn't want to go on a second date with me.

If you listened to anything I've said you would realise that I wouldn't want to date a woman like you... I know that must come as a shock, but it is the truth.

Somehow you have assumed that every guy out there wants a woman who acts like you do, who sees things as you do... but that just isn't true. There are many men who you wouldn't be compatible with and it isn't because they aren't good enough for you... sometimes it is because there is something about you that they do not like.

The numerous women here who wouldn't go out on a second date with me probably would if I called because I would have paid for date number one... I just would lose interest in them for not offering to contribute anything and hence would not go on a second date with them.

See the difference?

"You have yet to detail how you've overcome your evolutionary hard-wiring to go for attractive women and are instead dating hags with great personalities."

I haven't detailed it because I have outright rejected your notion that I am "hard wired" to do anything of the sort.

Also, let's be clear about something... why are you suggesting that being physically attractive and having a great personality are mutually exclusive traits?

I like women who are physically fit... but it has much less to do with any sort of genetic predisposition than it has to do with the fact that I like being active with my partner. It is difficult to play a game of tennis or go for a run with someone who is out of shape or who lacks stamina. Keep in mind that this goes for women who are thin but who can't sustain at least a moderate level of physical activity without losing their breath.

If a woman is physically fit and has a great personality then I don't care if she has an acne problem... or if she has a surgical scar... or if her hair is frizzy and has split ends... etc...

How have I overcome this?... let me ask you a similar question... how do you and many other women overcome their evolutionary hard-wiring to breed?

Let's face it... if men and women can choose to not have children... it isn't unfathomable that someone might choose a great personality over a set of perfect breasts.

Jason,

"So if he were to lose his job or fall upon hard times financially would he be any less wonderful or less of a gentleman? Would he lose value in your eyes even after 8 years if his wallet were to run dry and became an icky loser who couldn't foot the bill for you every time?"

He would be no less wonderful nor any less a gentleman. He has every quality I have ever dreamed of in a man. Of course I would still be with him.

Generosity and class are an attitude and have nothing to do with bank accounts.

While my present boyfriend of 8 yrs happens to be quite successful financially, my first boyfriend of 7 yrs (when I was really young) worked at a dept store, had little money but still payed for everything from the 1st date on.

"Icky" guys are not those who are broke, the reference was to those posting who seem so angry & bent out of shape over the prospect of paying for dinner without splitting the bill with their date. This reaction was actually unfathomable to me prior to reading the posts.

Let's face it... if men and women can choose to not have children... it isn't unfathomable that someone might choose a great personality over a set of perfect breasts.

No, no, we're not talking about minor tradeoffs -- naturally you try to shimmy out of that just like you're dying to shimmy out of treating a woman you ask out to dinner.

While you're demanding that women go against their genetic hardwiring, do you realize that there are a lot of very unattractive women out there with great personalities, and forgo dating pretty women for women who are truly wonderful within?

As for not wanting to date me - not to worry, I'd smell out your terror that you might have to spend an extra 12 cents beyond what your date puts out long before there ever was the prospect of a date. And get this: Is isn't paying I mind, not at all. It's chiselers.

Eh. Amy's wrong on this one. I offer the following arguments: (1) Her argument from evolutionary biology is spurious; (2) The "man pays custom" is irrational; (3) Amy underestimates the costs of dating; (4) Financial inflexibility early on means trouble later on.

Amy claims that “women evolved to seek ‘providers’ -- guys who show signs they’ll stick around to fork over gifts and grub after the fun is done.” This claim is true but incomplete. Women have also evolved to cheat on the ‘providers.’ All higher order primates follow this strategy: attach to a high status, ‘provider’ male and then get pregnant with another genetically desirable male. If the cuckolded male doesn’t catch on, his protection is cast over the more genetically desirable offspring. In the US, between 15-30% of children do not belong to the husband. By paying you are selecting yourself to be a cuckold. By not paying you are selecting yourself to be the other sexual interest. Amy’s claim doesn’t account for other roles males play in the “genetic hard-wiring” of females.

By any objective, reasonable standard of fairness, the man pays custom is irrational. There is no causal or moral reason men should always pay. This is obvious.

Dating costs can be very high. A decent date runs over $100. Many, many women date men for whom they have no romantic interest. These professional daters engage in a practice known as “dating for dinner.” Men who insist on fairness weed out the professional daters early. This benefits men tremendously because they end up spending most of their time with women who are actually interested in them.

Women who demonstrate selfishness and inflexibility at the beginning will only get worse. While dating, people are on their best behavior. If she’s a gold digger now, she’s going to fleece you later. Better to walk her to curb early.

Given the above, we should reject Amy’s advice in this instance, guys. Amy, you should rethink you argument from evolutionary biology --- women do not always seek a ‘provider.’ These days, less than ever.

Amy wrote, "And get this: Is isn't paying I mind, not at all. It's chiselers."

Well, I suppose there is some ad hominem in the gun powder on this one, from both sides. But there is a serious point to be made about this statement, because many women would assent to it.

Amy, the problem is you, and most women, have simply re-defined 'fairness' as "chiseling." In my case, I'm not talking about a woman paying when I invite her out. Whoever invites should pay, and women should do some inviting! That's the point.

And it's not chiseling. It's showing interest. It's fairness. It's showing a care for the man. It's good, honest behavior. And it's notably absent in the modern, liberated woman.

Dating costs can be very high. A decent date runs over $100.

Did you not read the piece? First date should not be for dinner.

And my bras cost over $100 with the euro, and women pay a great deal for beauty -- costs men don't have. If you can't afford to date, no biggie. Stay home and wank off.

" Whoever invites should pay, and women should do some inviting! "

See above. I used to ask men out. It typically doesn't end well. Men devalue women who pursue them. Clearly, you don't understand evolutionary psychology. Read Buss' book.

Sunny,

I think that is great, it really sounds like the man in your life is a friendly fellow. His quality in my opinion is best measured by all of the wonderful things about him that have absolutely nothing to do with cash. Money is the icing on the cake, nothing more, nothing less.

"Generosity and class are an attitude and have nothing to do with bank accounts."

I agree... they are also an attitude having nothing to do with gender.

Just as a man should be expected to display generosity and class, so should a woman... we should draw no distinction between the two and declare that men are required to display generosity and class and women are just supposed to be classy but generosity is optional.

I think it is wonderful that you've found someone who is generous and classy... but I see no reason why it should be objectionable for men to want women who are equally generous and classy.

That is what some people here are objecting to... they object to the notion that men should even look for women who are looking to give as much as they recieve... that it is inherently alright to strive to find someone who will offer as much compassion and support to you as you offer to them.

"While my present boyfriend of 8 yrs happens to be quite successful financially, my first boyfriend of 7 yrs (when I was really young) worked at a dept store, had little money but still payed for everything from the 1st date on."

Exactly why did you feel no desire whatsoever to chip in with the first boyfriend when he was poor?

Why don't you have a responsibility to display generosity and class just as your boyfriends did?

Constantly accepting support from someone else without reciprocating isn't classy... especially not when the person you are accepting support from is poor.

Also... I am curious why that 7 year relationship didn't work out.

""Icky" guys are not those who are broke, the reference was to those posting who seem so angry & bent out of shape over the prospect of paying for dinner without splitting the bill with their date. This reaction was actually unfathomable to me prior to reading the posts."

I don't see the anger that you see... I for one am not angry, in fact I'm pretty content.

I just know what I am looking for and see no reason why I should settle for anything less.

I for example wouldn't suggest that you are angry because you find paying for anything in a relationship to be anathema... I don't particularly feel it is a classy way to comport yourself, but I certainly don't believe you are angry at anyone because you see things differently than I do.

If anything the anger seems to be stemming from people who keep insulting those who just want to be given a fair shake.

Amy,

If you acknowledge that women aren't universally hard-wired to have children... then you can in no way declare that women are universally hard-wired to only date men who pay for everything.

From an evolutionary perspective the drive to reproduce is the single most important behaviorial function any living thing engages in, nothing else even comes close.

Therefore if you and other women have found some way to overcome that "hard-wired" biological drive... then all forms of behavior can be surmounted to an even easier extent.

The act of selecting a mate based upon good personality as opposed to physical attributes pales in comparison to the act of consciously deciding to eliminate oneself from the genepool... by choosing not to reproduce a human being essentially declares that they are an evolutionary dead end, not fundamentally different than someone born with a genetic disorder which makes them sterile.

Also, as crazy as it may sound... a man who selects an ugly woman as a mate with whom he has many children is infinitely more successful than the man who gets the attention of a georgeous woman who has no desire to have children at all.

From an evolutionary perspective selecting a hot woman with no desire to have offspring is the biological equivilant of suicide.

"While you're demanding that women go against their genetic hardwiring, do you realize that there are a lot of very unattractive women out there with great personalities, and forgo dating pretty women for women who are truly wonderful within?"

I am not demanding that women go against their genetic hardwiring because I see no evidence that they are "hardwired" to do anything of the sort.

If women aren't universally "hardwired" to desire to have children... then all bets are off for every other single behaviorial trait that is out there simply due to the fact that the selection pressures to have children are greater than the selection pressures to seek men who pay for everything.

There are lots of unattractive women with great personalities and lots of attractive women with great personalities... why should I distinguish between them if all I am really interested in is the great personality?... I see no reason to cut out the pretty women who are wonderful within just so I can focus on the ugly women who are wonderful within... why not examine both groups for the woman with the best personality?

Unless of course you are suggesting that ugly women by default have better personalities than pretty women... maybe this is true, but I see no reason why it would be.

"As for not wanting to date me - not to worry, I'd smell out your terror that you might have to spend an extra 12 cents beyond what your date puts out long before there ever was the prospect of a date. And get this: Is isn't paying I mind, not at all. It's chiselers."

You just keep going with that same old strawman... I've never suggested any chisling takes place... there also wouldn't be any terror, I'm a pretty easy going guy and don't let things bother me, plus I've got a fairly decent poker face.

It is interesting to me however how you are trying to turn this into some sort of a competition of who would reject who first... let me save you the trouble... I only date women in my age range and you are well outside of that, so this theoretical exercise is quite ridiculous... if it makes you feel good to believe that you'd reject a guy who wouldn't ask you out in the first place, be my guest.

It does bother me however that you continue to fabricate this penny pinching method of behavior that I have never once advocated, if you can't actually refute my true position then you have essentially admitted that my stance is too strong to defeat with rational arguments... hence you have to resort to fallacious tactics (i.e. lie often enough and people might begin to believe you).

Interestingly enough, like you, it isn't paying that I mind... it is what the offer to contribute tells me about the person I am dating, and the women who do so are the ones I think are actually worth investing in because I have reason to believe the odds are good that they would want for us to treat eachother fairly in other areas of the relationship which ultimately will lead to both of us being happier.

Jeff,

"Women who demonstrate selfishness and inflexibility at the beginning will only get worse."

This is precisely how I see it as well. By demonstrating that they are interested in equity and baring at least some of the risk of the first date they are also demonstrating that any relationship that might develop would be one based upon sharing and cooperation.

"Well, I suppose there is some ad hominem in the gun powder on this one, from both sides."

Not really from both sides to be honest... I've pretty much just sat here trying to offer reasonable arguments and information while being called cheap, stupid, rude... etc...

The entire thread is filled with fallacious arguments on the opposing end including ad hominem, strawmen, shifting goal posts, data falsification, appeals to innapropriate authority etc...

All that you have written with regard to evolutionary psychology I actually said before and as a result was informed that I don't understand the subject... Based upon what you have written I know that you've studied it before as what you have said is precisely what I learned when I was instructed by an expert in the field.

Please note that apparently you also don't understand the subject according to Amy... I pretty much quoted an expert who wrote an entire text book on evolutionary psychology that supported what I was saying and rejected her claims... want to know what her response was? and I quote:

"I don't "defer" to others -- ie, let others ("experts"!) do my thinking for me. A good thing, too, because there's plenty of shoddy work by "experts" in peer-reviewed journals."

In other words... she doesn't need to listen to the experts... she believes she knows better than they do even though they had to actually prove they understand the subject and that every paper they publish has to be approved by other recognized experts in the field.

Amy wrote, "And my bras cost over $100 with the euro, and women pay a great deal for beauty -- costs men don't have. If you can't afford to date, no biggie. Stay home and wank off."

There is a persistently hysterical character to female argumentation. At some point, sometimes very quickly, all women begin to posit something is wrong men who disagree with them. It can't be that there's legitimate disagreement. The man must be off somehow. Women too easily assume the pedestal of deference accorded them in polite society implies a moral superiority. Quite the opposite is true. The deference accorded women derives from a belief in female inferiority. That's why the smuggled use of it here is so surprising.

You offer a choice of two alternatives: "stay home and wank off" or subsidize women's bra costs. Let me see, what's the logical fallacy? Ah, yes. The false dilemma. There's other choices besides the two you mention. How very odd, my dear, you've tumbled into irrationality again! Emotions getting the best of you?

You see, I can "wank off" before I leave the house, and then have a fair date, and then begin to develop a great relationship based on mutual respect rather than financial exploitation, and then have great sex. At no time do I have to subsidize a woman's bra costs. Your error is to extrapolate from your own exploitative views and those of your impolite society.

Indeed, women who want me to subsidize their bra costs are inclined (by evolutionary psychology) to see me as less sexually desirable. Every time I reach for my wallet, I give more evidence to a woman that I am less sexually able and more willing to be cuckolded. You intentionally ignore evidence that evolutionary psychology allows for many male roles. That's dishonest.

In the same vein, you present only half of the story. Men evolved to be very choosy in the selection of a long-term partner. This is why sluts are undesirable to men for long-term partnerships. See A Mind of Her Own (p199-200). So, while you want to justify women's behavior by evolutionary psychology, you don't admit the same evidence justifies the slut double-standard. And you overlook the long history of the efficacy of male judgments like 'slut,' which serve men by selecting a mate who's less likely to cuckold them.

You are thus manifestly inconsistent, and since it's intentional you are the very stereotype of the irrational woman. When the benefits comes in, you want evolutionary psychology; when the benefits go out, you want social construction theory. Preposterous.

Nice try.

Amy wrote, "I used to ask men out. It typically doesn't end well. Men devalue women who pursue them. Clearly, you don't understand evolutionary psychology.

Yeah, yeah. Just as men are sexually devalued by pursuing women. Here you make the elementary error of most women. You just assume, with no evidence whatsoever, that the dating game is all orientated to persuading the woman. This is false.

All men who are successful with women get the ladies to chase them. This is well-known and easily established by evolutionary psychology.

Amy, your case is simply untenable. You gain nothing by holding to an obvious falsehood. You gain nothing by obvious duplicity. Recant and reclaim your rational nature.

Jason wrote, "Not really from both sides to be honest... I've pretty much just sat here trying to offer reasonable arguments and information while being called cheap, stupid, rude... etc..."

Apologies, Jason. I see now that you are correct in this judgment.

"Dating costs can be very high. A decent date runs over $100.

Did you not read the piece? First date should not be for dinner.

And my bras cost over $100 with the euro, and women pay a great deal for beauty -- costs men don't have."

Comparing paying for a date to you buying a bra is an inaccurate economical analogy.

I might as well factor in the cost of a home gym and claim that staying in shape with weight lifting equipment counts against your bra expenditures. Or claim that the cost of the car I use to pick my date up in needs to be taken into consideration.

The issue is that you are acting like after the date your bra gets tossed in the trash never to be used again.

Here is the problem with your comparison...  when someone pays for the entire date of $100, about half of that is directly invested into the other person... they actively consume that investment then and there in the form of food, drink, and entertainment. None of that get's to be used again for a date with someone else.

That bra you bought that you wear on a date isn't a one shot use item...  it's cost is spread out over the entirely of it's useful lifetime.  How many dates can that single bra go on before it is no longer a useful garment?...  let's be generous to your side and say it will only last 20 dates.

That essentially means that each date, only $5 dollars of that $100 bra is being invested in the guy who you are out with while he is investing $50 in you.

Needless to say your bra argument fails to ever come close to equalizing things even when I am being extremely generous to you and suggest it can only be worn 20 times.

Jason wrote, "Comparing paying for a date to you buying a bra is an inaccurate economical analogy."

Good point. It's intellectually degrading, the irrationality women exhibit to maintain the privilege of being a victim. Sad, really.

Good point. It's intellectually degrading, the irrationality women exhibit to maintain the privilege of being a victim. Sad, really.

Oh, please. If there's anything I'm not, I'm not a victim. I used to be a woman who asked men out and always paid for herself. I stopped because men devalue women who pursue them, and think women who pay aren't interested. Also, a guy tells you a lot about himself if he isn't a Jason, nervously dividing the check down to the penny.

It's not about the money, once and for all (if it were, I would be married to a movie star, not living alone and paying my own way). This about the strategy that's least risky and most successful, and as Gail and others have pointed out above, men who aren't chiselers or weenies will ask you out, and consider it polite to pay when they do. This doesn't mean they will or should pay forever, but if you are a guy and you can't afford (in wallet terms or emotionally) to pick up a check for a glass of wine (date one: $7) and maybe dinner or a glass of wine on date two, stay home and say a big hello to Mr. Hand. Or look for girls with low self-esteem who will put up with anything. If you're lucky, you might just find one who's okay, and pays anyway.

And the bra was just one example. It costs a lot more to be a girl and look good for a date. Except, perhaps, for those mustachioed beauties who are willing to split the check with Jason.

All men who are successful with women get the ladies to chase them. This is well-known and easily established by evolutionary psychology

No it's not. How silly.

And it's not established by experience, either. I dated the kind of guy women used to approach while I was with him.

We dated because he pursued me like mad. He wasn't interested in all the women who pursued him. And the line looked like a rerun of that scene from The 10 Commandments where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea.

Amy,

"Also, a guy tells you a lot about himself if he isn't a Jason, nervously dividing the check down to the penny."

Every time you set up this straw man I will chop it right down.

No one is suggesting for anyone to be a penny pincher.

This is a stance of your own creation because the actual position is far too strong for you to defeat with in logical or reasonable manner.

The fact that you keep finding a way to toss it back into the argument even after I constantly tell you that no one is supporting that position just displays how intellectually dishonest you are inclined to be on this matter.

"It's not about the money, once and for all (if it were, I would be married to a movie star, not living alone and paying my own way)."

Exactly what makes you so confident that you could even get a movie star?

This is the crux of the matter here Amy... you've somehow come to the conclusion that you could have any man on the face of the planet... that it is you in the drivers seat and that no man on earth could honestly reject you.

You even went so far as to say that you could afford your high standards... but men could not, we essentially have to take whatever comes our way, no matter how repugnant her personality might be so long as she is attractive.

Here is some shocking news for you... you cannot have any guy that you want... no one can... there is always going to be some guy out there who you don't meet the standards for.

The sooner you come to accept this as a reality the sooner we can all get back to a reasonable discussion.

I have no delusions that I could be with any woman on earth, I know that I'm not right for all of them... you need to free yourself of the illusion that all men are somehow trying to bash down your door to be with you.

I for one am not interested... and if I'm not interested, I'd say it is a safe bet that getting a movie star wouldn't be the easiest thing in the world.

"Or look for girls with low self-esteem who will put up with anything. If you're lucky, you might just find one who's okay, and pays anyway."

The fact that you not only seek to degrade men who are interested in women who want to exist in a fair and cooperative relationship... but also seek to degrade the women who are interested in that sort of relationship just goes to show how ridiculous your stance on this issue is.

Amy, one thing that you've failed to realize is this... the men out there who have to foot the bill for everything aren't the prime catches you are asserting they are.

Movie stars, politicians, sports superstars don't have to shell out a penny and can have any women they desire.

These are the truly desirable men... and none of them need to spend anything on a woman to have their interest.

You want to know who the men are that need to pay for women to be interested in them?... it's the men who are out of shape, unintelligent, lacking a sense of humor, or just generally unattractive.

Those are the sorts of guys that are required to pay for everything... the really good looking men or really successful men don't have to pay anything, they have women swooning over them just by being in their presence.

Also, just to point something out that you may not be aware of... you keep trying to claim how you and women like you are somehow at the pinnacle of the dating scene... guess what... you and those like you are going extinct... you aren't a model of evolutionary success.

By selecting not to have any children, you and all women like you (no matter how hot you think you are) are being selected out of the population.

Any men who are attracted to you are similarly being selected out of the population.

All those women who you are categorizing as ugly and undesirable are actually more successful than you in terms of evolution if they have a desire to have children.

So you can keep trying to suggest that the women who are interested in men like me must be hairy, ugly, or undesirable (all of which is untrue... but you never needed to adhere to a pesky thing like evidence in this discussion so far, so why now?)... but guess what... they also are the future while the women like you and the men who are attracted to those like you are both evolutionary dead ends.

Contrary to what you may think... evolution doesn't care how hot you are... all it cares about is how many offspring you leave behind before your time is up. Women who are uninterested in having children are not evolutionary success stories.

Amy wrote, "This doesn't mean they will or should pay forever, but if you are a guy and you can't afford (in wallet terms or emotionally) to pick up a check for a glass of wine (date one: $7) and maybe dinner or a glass of wine on date two, stay home and say a big hello to Mr. Hand."

Then we're not as far apart in our views as I thought. But we have some space, still. One can easily turn this around and say: if a woman meeting a stranger to get to know him already wants freebies, then she should stay at home with Mr. Rabbit or get used to wiping her feet on door mat boyfriends.

You advocate "the strategy that's least risky and most successful" for women. Pushing all the financial responsibility onto the man is surely a way to reduce risk for women --- but not for the man who's accepting the additional responsibility. The questioner above was a man. You gave him the best strategy for a woman, not for man. How many women have you dated again?

You err on a basic point.

Or look for girls with low self-esteem who will put up with anything. If you're lucky, you might just find one who's okay, and pays anyway.

The entitled princess who feels entitled to a stranger's money is the one who's not OK. By contrast, the woman who upholds rational standards, who won't be purchased like a cheap whore for a $7 drink, who upholds her own independence by showing she chooses to be with a man --- that, now that, is a one helluva turn on. You don't want anything from me, yet you are spending your time and energy with me? Hell yes. She's in the passenger seat, and the others women are in the back seat.

And you act like there's few women like that. Wrong. They're called honest, professional, independent, non-manipulative women. They aren't as common as the entitled princesses, but they are a very large minority. It's best to get rid of the princesses right away --- when they whine because a stranger won't spend a few dollars on them --- so a man can spend his time with the rational chicks. These are the kind of women men dream about. They like men, they are reasonable, flexible and giving. Prime beef on the hoof. Drop the princesses off at midnight before they turn into the hags they are.

Dating strategies aren't the same for men and women. You're teaching men to do what women want, even when it tends to land them a gold digger, reduces their sexual standing, and reduces their personal power.

We dated because he pursued me like mad. He wasn't interested in all the women who pursued him.

You are still inverting the question. You are extrapolating from your dating experience as a woman, and applying it to a man. How many women have you dated? That's dumb. The guy lost control and went mad after you. Why isn't a good thing for the guy to have a woman going mad for him and pursuing him in the seductive way only women can.

You're giving men gynocentric advice on these matters, and you can't even see it. You base your view on the evolutionary psychology of women, while ignoring the evolutionary strategies men have developed. Then you apply female psychology as though there is no competing male strategy. Your advice is incoherent, incomplete, and wildly out of gender context.

Amy, just so you know: I'm not attacking you personally. All I know about you is from your blog and your photos. That is, you are smart and very, very hot.

Jeff,

Just to point out, a while back I went over how close the positions actually are.

The major discrepancy is over date number 1 where I advocate some sort of shared risk and Amy and others advocate that the man shoulder all of the risk at the beginning of the relationship.

For the life of me I cannot figure out why they cannot see the problem with that... or at the very least see why that isn't the best way for men to approach dating.

You bring up the guy who wrote the original letter, and I think that is important.

Apparently this fellow has been always footing the bill... and apparently that method hasn't lead to much success for him... and the women who he has been dating apparently refuse to contribute anything at all.

The important thing that should have been noticed is that this pattern wasn't working for him... it wasn't making him happy with the women he was dating.

Instead of getting some advice on how to improve his own happiness with the situation all he got was advice to shut up and deal with it and make the women he was out with happy... there was no concern for his happiness whatsoever.

Apparently whether or not he felt that paying for everything was successful for him didn't matter... all that mattered was that it was successful for the women he was going out with.

Jason,

"Why don't you have a responsibility to display generosity and class just as your boyfriends did?"

That depends on how one defines class & generosity.

For you: class = a woman who splits the bills with you.

For my boyfriend: class = a woman who is beautifully put together, poised, fun, entertaining, warm & friendly among family, friends, colleagues and employees.

As far as generosity goes it is purely your assumption and perception that I am not generous.

My boyfriend would never dream of asking me to pay and I would never dream of asking him to pick up after himself or cook a meal. There is no such thing as true equality even within gender- everyone is born with a different set of strengths and weaknesses and within a different set of circumstances.

My boyfriend and I enjoy our differences and support each other in ways that best suit us and remain true to who we are.

If I am truly so lacking in class and any type of generosity that you can imagine, then I guess it's quite a feat that I have kept a handsome, intelligent, charismatic multi-millionaire with dating options galore (or any man for that matter) passionately in love with me for over 8 yrs now by what... my looks alone? I doubt even Giselle Bundchen could accomplish that.

There is quite a bit more to having a great relationship than what you appear to be aware of.

If splitting the bills is so crucially important to you of course you must wait for that woman who will be into this- I just don't know of anyone who is and that's why I agreed with Amy's comment about women being hard-wired to want the provider who takes care of her.

sunny wrote, "My boyfriend would never dream of asking me to pay and I would never dream of asking him to pick up after himself or cook a meal."

You didn't respond to me, but your thoughts are interesting. You must understand one important thing, sunny. You are the outlier here. Damn. I wish I could find a woman who reciprocates the way you do. I love to cook, especially to bake. If I could find a woman who would cook savories while I cook pastries, I'd probably ask her to marry me. ;-) Alas, women like you are so rare, one must act as if they don't exist.

That's hyperbolic, and I'm going to tell you about an exception. My current girlfriend cooks, and she doesn't make much money as a graduate student. But she comes over to my place and cooks for me. She does this because I established right from the beginning that I expect her to reciprocate for tickets to the theater. Sadly, women (so many one can say 'all') feel so entitled these days that men can expect nothing back. Honestly, I have to educate potential partners on how to do things for men.

Try this experiment. My girlfriend was shocked when she did it. Ask female acquaintances this question: What should a man do to make you feel special? They will go on for hours. Without telegraphing your intentions, ask: What should a woman do for a man to make him feel special? You will hear a long silence, and then "What do you mean?" with a quizzical look. Try it you'll see what I mean. Modern women have no idea how to treat men. Many seem to think men are creatures of cold stone with an ATM keypad.

Women don't know how deal kindly with men anymore. Women want men to act like 18th century gentlemen, while they act like 21st century feminists. I know from personal experience, from evolutionary biology, and from observation of other men who are very successful with women --- men do not have to cater to entitled princesses.

Men have to guard against getting involved in that kind of exploitative asymmetry. Women that show kindness, flexibility, and reciprocity early will get past a man's Entitled Bitch Filter (tm).

If splitting the bills is so crucially important to you of course you must wait for that woman who will be into this- I just don't know of anyone who is

It's not the bill spitting that's important --- it's the attitude of irrational entitlement that leads women to expect a stranger to "provide" for them. Evolution has produces many adaptive behaviors in men that do not entail adopting a "provider" role.

I have a whole theory that can explain the odd asymmetry inherent in the female view of dating. But that's off topic.

Sunny,

"That depends on how one defines class & generosity.

For you: class = a woman who splits the bills with you.

For my boyfriend: class = a woman who is beautifully put together, poised, fun, entertaining, warm & friendly among family, friends, colleagues and employees."

Based upon everything I have said in this thread there is no possible way you can honestly declare that for me class only equals someone willing to contribute. I would never date someone who was a horror to be around... warmth and friendliness are certainly a requirment. Why on earth would you think I would date someone who offered to split the bill and then told off my mother or best friend?

For me class is everything you've listed for your boyfriend and a whole lot more.

"My boyfriend would never dream of asking me to pay and I would never dream of asking him to pick up after himself or cook a meal."

I never suggested that he should ask... I am suggesting that you should offer.

There is a huge difference.

Similarly it would be nice if he would offer to pick up after himself or to cook something... see how this whole reciprocity thing works?... it is a two way street.

"There is no such thing as true equality even within gender- everyone is born with a different set of strengths and weaknesses and within a different set of circumstances."

Sure, everyone has different strengths... but they aren't drawn across gender lines.

What leads you to believe that a mans strength is paying for everything and a womans strength is cooking?

Some women cannot cook and some men are expert chefs.

You never said that men should always pay for a woman who cooks for them... you just said that in 15 years of relationships, you haven't paid a dime for anything.

"If I am truly so lacking in class and any type of generosity that you can imagine, then I guess it's quite a feat that I have kept a handsome, intelligent, charismatic multi-millionaire with dating options galore"

I'm not talking about that guy Sunny.

My comment about your class had to do with the 7 year relationship with the pauper who you still didn't offer to pay anything for... you said yourself the guy had no money, yet he still paid for everything over the course of 7 years and you didn't offer to pay for even a single lunch. That doesn't display class no matter how you slice it.

You can still be classy in other ways while not displaying class in another.

It is kind of like telling someone who is generally a nice person that they did something that wasn't nice.

I'm not saying that overall you aren't classy... I am saying that in that specific instance where you dated a financially poor fellow for 7 years and expected him to pay for everything all the time... that wasn't very classy.

You also never explained why that relationship didn't work out.

Sunny,

Also, to reiterate what Jeff said... if over 15 years worth of relationships you split things up with your boyfriends such that you always cleaned up after them and always cooked for them... and in response they always paid for the entertainment... that isn't such a problem so far as I am concerned.

What you have to realize though is that there are lots of women out there who don't know how to cook... wouldn't offer to cook... expect their guy to clean up after themselves... AND pay for everything.

I'd encourage you to find out how many of the women here who expect the men to pay for everything at the beginning of the relationship would also agree that they should be expected to clean up after the guy they are with over that same period in time... chances are the results will be zero.

Surely you can see how that might strike some men as being a problem, right?

Jason,

"Based upon everything I have said in this thread there is no possible way you can honestly declare that for me class only equals someone willing to contribute"

Sorry- I read all the threads a while back but hadn't paid attention to any of the names underneath until you addressed me directly.

"I'm not saying that overall you aren't classy... I am saying that in that specific instance where you dated a financially poor fellow for 7 years and expected him to pay for everything all the time... that wasn't very classy."

"You also never explained why that relationship didn't work out."

We were both poor b/c we chose to live together at age 18 and instead of doing anything productive we chose to party continually for the next 6 yrs with half-hearted attempts at college in between. The last couple years I began to grow out of it and he did not- he was not willing to compromise on lifestyle choices so finally I moved on. That's the simple version of course.

This guy was not quite the poor put-upon underdog you assume he was- he was the most popular guy in highschool,traffic-stopping gorgeous, funny, witty and extremely entertaining - he had girls chasing him throughout our entire relationship.

Our "love" was based on looks and personality only, puppy love on my part and physical obsession on his. In private he was selfish and unemotional- I was spoiled and childish. We were both idiots and hurt each other alot- No one person was the victim in that mess. It was miles away from the spiritual love and connection that I have now.

Also to add, we both came from very comfortable families and had other options open to us- we chose not to take them at that time- instead choosing to live the way we did and pay the consequences.

I know you are very focused on the money issue- but it literally never came up so I don't know what to say to you except that it never crossed my mind and was probably the ONLY topic we did not fight about.

Jason,

"What you have to realize though is that there are lots of women out there who don't know how to cook... wouldn't offer to cook... expect their guy to clean up after themselves... AND pay for everything."

"Surely you can see how that might strike some men as being a problem, right?"

Of course any person with at least half a heart would not support a truly one-sided relationship for anyone.

I'm just not sure that it's fair to assume that b/c these women do not cook or clean that they also do not show support or love in any other way. There are many opportunities to make your partner's life happier that don't involve cooking, cleaning or splitting bills.

To illustrate - here is one small example:

Early on when my boyfriend had only 2 employees, a situation arose where there was an enormous amount of work to do in a very short period of time- it was crucial to meet this deadline. Both employees were out sick. My boyfriend was going to have to work around the clock to do it himself-though he really needed to be taking care of other things.

I had him quickly teach me and I worked for 3 days straight from early morning till late at night-I had to double and triple check everthing I did since it was not the type of work I was familiar with- it was exhausting and difficult but I finished on time and he was more than thrilled. This meant thousands of dollars for his business and a virtually stress-free time for him.

I truly doubt that me paying half of dinner would have meant more to him financially or personally than that gesture.

I'm not going to bore you with more examples but this is the type of thing I am talking about.

Obviously if you are with someone who is not there for you when you really need it and shows no signs of love or caring- you should not be with that person, but I really don't think a woman not offering to pay on a date is an accurate indicator of how she will treat you in the future.

Sunny,

Thank you for explaining the situation, and congratulations on finding your way into a much better relationship that you seem to be really happy with.

Just so you know, I'm not focused on money... what I am focused upon is using reliable markers to distinguish between someone who is interested in me... and someone who is interested in what I can do for them financially. See the difference?

Here is the deal that I believe some women have trouble understanding... sure, women are interested in finding a guy who is capable of providing... but at the same time men are interested in finding a woman who is capable of sharing, being devoted, loyal, caring, emotionally honest etc...

Why on earth should a man be expected to provide for someone just because they are a woman when she has yet to prove that she is any of the things he is looking for?

A woman who is interested in being provided for before she's shown what a quality person she really is, is essentially expecting to start off at the top.

No one starts off as the ceo... you have to work your way up the ladder a bit. The same way I don't just expect anyone I date to sleep with me on date number one... presumably I should have to show her that I am worth it, and if I don't have to display my quality then I might have to call her method of distinguishing between good men and crappy men into question.

Many of the women in this thread seem to believe that just because they are women they deserve to be taken care of by some guy they just met... I reject this notion... I'll take care of her after I know she's the type of person that really deserves that kind of investment... the same way women aren't expected to just sleep with a guy until after she's determined that he's worth it.

You bring up cooking... let's say I was invited over a womans house for a home cooked meal... it would be a safe bet to assume I would do the following things... the first is I would bring something with me because showing up empty handed is not the proper way to behave... and the second is that I would pay for the entertainment. Why?... because she put forth the effort to show that she was interested in me, she contributed her time to make a meal.

To me a woman who doesn't offer to contribute to a date she is taken out on is like a guy who you invited over who showed up empty handed... just expecting you to take care of everything while he just absorbed the benefits.

The woman's contribution doesn't have to be financial... it just needs to be something beyond showing up and expecting the guy to handle everything. Sure I'll do it... but she isn't going to hear from me again as to me, in that sort of a situation it displays enormous character to offer to contribute since she hasn't done anything else to invest in the date... the same way it says something positive about a guests character when they bring a gift.

To me, on a first date it is important for both people to show that they are interested in the other person... not just interested in what they are getting out of the date. A woman who expects a man to pay for everything on date number one is about as attractive to me as a man who expects the woman to sleep with them on date number one is attractive to the average woman.

No one has any right to expect anything from someone on the first date beyond them being good company... which includes being charming, witty, polite, funny, and holding interesting conversation.

"he was the most popular guy in highschool,traffic-stopping gorgeous, funny, witty and extremely entertaining - he had girls chasing him throughout our entire relationship."

Thank you for making my point about the fact that men who have the qualities women are actually looking for do not have to pay one red cent to have them running after them.

This is what I've been saying for quite a while... I don't need to pay everything for a date in order to get women. Neither did either of your boyfriends... they choose how and when to invest in their dates because the truth is that when a guy is attractive enough, he isn't required to flash money to get a womans attention.

Sunny,

Of course money isn't the only way to contribute to a relationship. Your example of helping out your boyfriend when he really needed it is a great instance of where you came through for him.

Here is the problem though... that sort of effort isn't something you would ever just do for a guy you just met. He presumably would have to earn that kind of devotion from you correct?

I'm guessing that you didn't spend 3 days straight working for your boyfriend after date number 2, correct?

The problem is the following... how does a guy determine if the woman he just started dating is the kind of woman who will be there to support him later when he needs it... or the kind of woman who will ditch him when the going gets tough?

What did you do on dates number 1 and 2 that would have indicated to your current boyfriend that you would be willing to spend 3 days straight helping him get out of a business jam?

Did you do anything that might give him a clue that you were that type of a woman?... or was he just left to gamble and hope that you had that kind of strength of character?

In my opinion, by offering to contribute a woman is essentially saying "I am the type of person that wants to take care of you as much as wants to be taken care of by you".

When she offers nothing and just expects me to pay what I hear is "I am the type of person that wants you to take care of me... you can take care of yourself."

She does this because I established right from the beginning that I expect her to reciprocate for tickets to the theater. Sadly, women (so many one can say 'all') feel so entitled these days that men can expect nothing back. Honestly, I have to educate potential partners on how to do things for men.

Eeuw, that's positively creepy.

I waited until I found a great guy. The idea that you start instructing another adult...or that it's okay to do so...is just vile.

Not surprisingly, Jason, you even seem to brag about it.

Amy,

"Not surprisingly, Jason, you even seem to brag about it."

Not surprisingly you've made another gross error.

I didn't say that... Jeff did.

If you aren't going to check your facts please leave my name out of it.

Amy,

Just to comment further, you seem so hell bent on insulting me you don't even care if I am the one saying what you find offensive.

Let's see if you have the strength of character to apologize for the error or if you'll just insult me again for even expecting one for being called vile because of a comment I didn't even make.

I am only responsible for what I say... I don't control the words of anyone else.

Needless to say, at this point I am thoroughally convinced that you aren't interested in any sort of civil discussion... just at tossing insults at me for no reason whatsoever.

Jason,

"The problem is the following... how does a guy determine if the woman he just started dating is the kind of woman who will be there to support him later when he needs it... or the kind of woman who will ditch him when the going gets tough?"

By looking for someone with a general attitude of kindness, caring, & compassion...not just regarding how they treat those closest to them but their overall way of interacting and looking out for their fellow human beings. It doesn't have to big things- often it's the little things that illustrate best.

For instance:

A caring person will be sure to step ahead and hold the door open for the elderly or physically challenged , while someone else may be oblivious of the need or not want to make the effort.

A kind person makes sure they treat those in service positions with the genuine warmth, respect and dignity, while someone else may feel entitled to offer indifference or worse yet- rudeness.

The reality is a woman with a good heart who will be there for *you* when times get tough is already there for others... every day of her life-not just when she has a romantic investment.

"By looking for someone with a general attitude of kindness, caring, & compassion...not just regarding how they treat those closest to them but their overall way of interacting and looking out for their fellow human beings. It doesn't have to big things- often it's the little things that illustrate best."

That is great... why don't you have to do that and instead just refer to a guy who feels that equity is important is "icky"?

Why don't you have to look for a general attitude of kindness, compassion, and caring?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I agree that the only thing that should matter is the quality of someones character... so what's the icky thing about sharing?

Sunny,

I am writing this to you, but the truth is that this can be looked at as a general statement as well.

Here is the deal... we have all this talk about who is supposed to pay... then we have talk about high moral fiber.

The two are not linked in exactly the manner that some of the people in this thread are suggesting.

Let's put it this way... Based upon the criteria you set forth for being a caring person, I care for the elderly... in fact as a teenager I spent time with alzheimers patients while working in a biomedical laboratory working toward developing theraputic agents which might help them... since then I've continued to offer a kind ear and some conversation even when I just run into them on the bus, their wisdom can be quite inspiring at times.

So far as being kind to those in the service industry, you won't find anyone kinder than those who have worked in that industry and really understand the kind of work that goes into it. I was a waiter all through college as a way to earn some extra money and so far as I am concerned, everyone should spend at least a portion of their life working at a job that they might consider to be "beneath" them as it really offers some perspective.

Based upon all of that it seems to me that I've met the criteria that you've put forth that you believe mean a woman should not have to pay anything on a date... why shouldn't your criteria also apply to me?... or is kindness only a buy out for women?

Let me turn this around a bit and hopefully you can see where I am comming from.

Suppose you were invited for dinner over at a friends house. Would you arrive empty handed, or would you bring some sort of gift in appreciation for the invitation?

Most people in polite society would bring something, be it desert, a fruit platter, a bottle of wine... you get the idea.

Showing up empty handed is crude and stingy... you don't get to be invited over somewhere and just expect the host to take care of everything while you contribute nothing... that would make you a bad guest.

Similarly, someone who is invited out on a date has an obligation to be a good guest, and that goes beyong just showing up and being polite.

According to Amy the mans job is to pay, and the womans job is to look hot.

First of all, I can't exactly just roll out of bed, grab some dirty clothes out of the hamper, neglect to shave and then show up for a date ready to pay and expect my date to think well of me... I've got to look good too, take some pride in my appearance and display a measure of respect for the person I am with by being presentable.

Secondly, if I am invited over someones home for dinner... I can't just walk right in empty handed and say I've been a good guest because I was well dressed and handsome.

Does a woman have to contribute financially to a date in order to be a good guest... no, she could also bring a present, or some other token in appreciation of being taken out similar to what someone should do if they are invited over as a guest.

A guest on a date has more responsibility than to just look hot... offering to financially contribute is just one method of displaying you are a good guest, there are others, but most would seem extremely odd, like bringing a home baked pie with you to give to the guy you are out with.

Needless to say, being a good guest is about more than just looking good and being polite.

Just as if you showed up empty handed to a friends house when they invited you over, they would think twice about inviting you over again... similarly I don't invite a poor guest out on a second date.

Taken from that perspective I see no reason why you or anyone else can object to my perspective.

Jason,

"That is great... why don't you have to do that and instead just refer to a guy who feels that equity is important is "icky"?

If you don't want Amy to put words in your mouth then please don't put them in mine. "Icky" was not used in reference to equity - it had to do with overtly angry ranting expressed in a crude and vulgar manner by some of the men here-to me that is "icky".

"Why don't you have to look for a general attitude of kindness, compassion, and caring?"

Obviously I looked for those qualities in a man and I have found them in my present mate- I thought I made that perfectly clear earlier.

"I agree that the only thing that should matter is the quality of someones character".

First of all character is not the *only* thing that should matter. For those more interested in the superficial, character doesn't matter at all -it is up to the individual to decide what qualities are important.

For most people a completely satisfying and long lasting relationship requires attraction on all levels: physical, emotional, mental and spiritual. There are many wonderful men of good character that I would not be compatible with b/c attraction is a very specific and complex thing that can't be forced just b/c someone is a good person.

"...so what's the icky thing about sharing?"

Once again, another false quote and it makes you seem much less sincere than in previous posts, particularily since we have already agreed that there are many ways to share, support and show caring that do not involve splitting the dinner bill.

You asked me the following question:

"...how does a guy determine if the woman he just started dating is the kind of woman who will be there to support him later when he needs it... or the kind of woman who will ditch him when the going gets tough?"

and I answered it b/c I thought it was posed in earnest.

Maybe some people choose to argue, attack and try to be "right" even at the cost of twisting the facts and deliberately misunderstanding simple concepts.

Maybe your reading comprehension is at fault here - I really don't know.

I wish you the best. You can go on attacking me all you want and misconstruing my words. If it makes you feel better please do assume the worst of me and the rest of the female population at all times regardless of any possible evidence to the contrary.

I've got to go though.

Best wishes and Happy New Year:-)

Sunny,

"If you don't want Amy to put words in your mouth then please don't put them in mine. "Icky" was not used in reference to equity - it had to do with overtly angry ranting expressed in a crude and vulgar manner by some of the men here-to me that is "icky"."

There is a huge difference between Amy quoting another person entirely and calling me vile and creepy for what they said and me questioning you about your actual use of the word icky.

The fact that you are even trying to draw a comparison between the two is mind boggling.

Furthermore, here is what you actually said:

"Reading these emotional rants from angry, icky guys who are fussing about paying for dinner???"

You are calling the guys angry and icky because they are fussing about paying for dinner (i.e. concerned about equity)... that is how that sentence reads.

If your intention was to call the angry guys icky why not just say something like "These emotional rants from angry men just make them seem icky."... or something of that nature?

If I said "Reading these insulting rants from bitter, icky women who feel they are entitled to dinner just for getting dressed nice???" What on earth makes it obvious that icky is refering to the bitterness and not to the entitlement issue?... In fact one might say that it applies to the whole thing.

Even trying to classify my interpretation of what you actually said in the same league as what Amy has done is entirely disingenuous... the equivilant would have been for me to find some prejudice comment made by another poster entirely and then call you a racist. If icky was only meant to refer to the anger then what was the point of the rest of the sentence?

So far as you finding those great moral qualities in your current mate, that is wonderful. You've still set up a double standard though. Based upon what you have said a man should foot the bill while trying to discover if you are a wonderful human being while you just get to show up and discover if he is a wonderful human being for free. I can definately see why that would be to your advantage, there are lots of crappy people out there and why would you want to pay anything while sifting through them for the gems... the problem is that for whatever reason you are unable to see it from the opposite perspective. Why should a man have to pay to dig through the dirt to find a gem?

"First of all character is not the *only* thing that should matter. For those more interested in the superficial, character doesn't matter at all -it is up to the individual to decide what qualities are important."

The operative word there is "should"... of course it isn't the only thing that does matter. When I used the word should is was in the "if the world was ideal" sense where it would be similar to the following statement "No one should have to deal with a lack of clean drinking water.". Of course I recognize that there are lots of people in poor nations who only have dirty water... hence my use of the word "should".

"Once again, another false quote and it makes you seem much less sincere than in previous posts, particularily since we have already agreed that there are many ways to share, support and show caring that do not involve splitting the dinner bill."

Yes we did... and I stand by that fact. The problem here is that no one has suggested how a woman is to be expected to share on date number one.

I agree that it doesn't have to be money specifically... but I haven't seen any alternatives offered. Being polite and friendly doesn't cut it in terms of sharing any more than being polite and friendly makes up for showing up at a friends house for dinner without bringing anything.

I am in agreement that theoretically there are many ways to share, suppoer and show caring... but in practice none of those things occur on date number one either. Just to make it clear, you don't get out of sharing just because you helped an elderly woman across the street earlier that day.

You have basically asserted that by virtue of being kind in general you shouldn't have to contribute tangibly to the date... if that is true then it should also apply to men, no?

So far as twisting facts goes, the truth is that I just go by what people say... I asked you a question in earnest and what I recieved was an ephemeral and intangible response. You expect men to judge you based upon your display of compassion and kindness on date number one while you judge men based upon their display of compassion, kindness and cash. That is an inequivilant arrangement and that is what I am objecing to.

I wholeheartedly agree that kindness, compassion, and generosity are increadibly important, but I also feel that both parties need to display both in equal measure... no one get's seeded into round two before they are obligated to do so.

Best wishes and Happy New Year to you as well. For what it is worth you seem to be a friendly person and I appreciate your thoughts.

I doubt anyone has interest in this topic any longer, and to be honest I really didn't have much further to say regarding this issue. Then I recalled an article I read a few years ago regarding an African culture which provides proof positive that none of this is hard-wired human behavior, it is culturally induced as I and others have been suggesting.

Here is the article:

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/070202_marriage.htm

In this culture women propose marriage by cooking a meal for the man of their choosing (i.e. they provide for the man at the beginning)... and then for the marriage to be considered official she constructs a grass covered hut for them to live in.

Needless to say this is a striking cultural difference that developed independently of the eurocentric courtship tradition, thereby proving unequivocally that the premise that human women are genetically hard-wired to only be interested in those who give them things at the beginning of a relationship is utterly false... if it were true such a culture could never exist.

It is interesting to note as well that the older members of that community scoff at the idea of men chasing women as quickly as some here scoff at the idea of women asking men out on a date.

While I wish I'd commented on this one much earlier, I guess it's better late than never. While I understand (but don't agree wholly) with Amy's advice, I think we are witnessing a true, long term change in the dynamics of dating. I was more than surprised at the rigor of the resistance to Jason's suggestions and assertions for more equality in the initial dating scheme. As I read the entire part of the blog on this over a weekend, I had the opporunity to see it differently than those of you who engaged in the regular pull and push on this topic. More and more, men like Jason are resisting paying the traditional entry fee or making the initial offering to date women. This shouldn't surprise us, given the massive changes in men's and women's concepts of themselves as men and women in recent decades.
In economic terms, the price of sex (so to speak) with women has plummeted due to the increase in supply of sex itself as well as the smorgasborg of soft and hard porn available on the internet and alternatives. Demand has risen all that it reasonably can, give the increase in supply and number of alternatives.
More than a few continue to sell it at the old price, insisting that its value hasn't dropped. Ah, the good old days.
I think the root of the resistance is in Amy's 12.21 post "It's hard enough to get men to ask women out." I sense that well meaning, physically and emotionally attractive, straight women are finding it harder and harder to find a good man and fear that the supply will be contrained even further and they will be valued even less if men like Jason have their way. I assume they also are worried about what they will have to offer up next to continue to compete for the available supply of acceptable males. At the same time, evolution tugs at them to keep the former arrangement, where it was presumed (at least publicly) that sex and relationships with women were more valued than sex and relationships with men.
On a personal note, I say "right on" Jason. Don't be persuaded by the arguments here. My relationship with my current (and more egalitarian) wife is much, much better than I had with my former (and more traditional) wife. I, too (Jason's earlier example of a woman who impressed him on the initial date), was extremely impressed with my current wife's fairer approach to the dating scheme. I don't want to go back to the old days and would never go back to a traditional woman, in the sense that most of you have discussed on this topic.
"20% and growing every year"

I think we are witnessing a true, long term change in the dynamics of dating.

Actually, we aren't. Any more than we're witnessing a lot of men dating ugly women with great personalities.

Women realize at a certain point that casual sex with guys won't get them boyfriends (men, especially players, find women who have sex with them right away uglier after the moment of orgasm).

The women you will have a good relationship with are women like me who aren't gold diggers, and who don't have low self-esteem, and who have lives of their own and aren't looking for men to pay for them.

You cannot overcome the effects of millions of years of evolution with a few decades of social equality.

Nathaniel Branden said to me, "People will tell you what they're about if you're willing to listen." Perhaps Jason's a terrible judge of character, leading to his classless (asking somebody out and expecting them to pay) and scared rabbit style of dating. Men who have a hard time getting dates, especially, would do well to not listen to Jason. This is not an effective approach, as it weeds out many women (see above) who will pay for themselves throughout the relationship, but know to look for signs of what a man's interest is and what he's made of.

Ok. We are witnessing a change in male behavior that may or may not have any impact on at the evolutionary scale. But we are witnessing a change. And I think it is happening regardless of female's reaction to it. My sense is that males are moving away from females or not moving towards them in the way(s) that their fathers did. The dynamics between the sexes have changed in a generation, even if only over the short term.

Men like Jason and I(perhaps I should just speak for myself) aren't missing out on anything. We can only have one woman at a time. Amy, I wouldn't be too quick to pronounce what types of women Jason &/or I might have a good realationship with. You are very likely right for "the 80%".

You're right "The women you will have a good relationship with are women like me who aren't gold diggers, and who don't have low self-esteem, and who have lives of their own and aren't looking for men to pay for them." AND who are egalitarian in their nature in the way that guys like Jason and I prefer. The other 80% of the guys are free to not care.

I never got the sense that Jason was a poor judge of character in his post, nor would I call him classless or presume to know his dating style.

You're right that "men who have a hard time getting dates, especially, would do well not to listen to Jason". But it was Jason (and not the 80%) who asked the advice question.

Increasingly, I sense men are also not as nervous about asserting themselves, even if it means (gasp) there might be an opportunity missed.

Greg,

Just to be clear... I didn't ask for any advice.

My only interest has been putting to rest her incorrect contention that people are hard-wired to behave in the way she is suggesting.

It is a culturally induced phenomenon as illustrated by the alternative African culture I posted information about.

Beyond that I agree with you 100%

"The women you will have a good relationship with are women like me "

About how many of the men you have dated would agree to that statement?... my guess is only a minor fraction. The guy you are currently with I am sure is happy with you, but to presume that you or women like you are a good match for anyone is the height of arrogance.

The fact that you also won't reneg on this evolutionary hardwiring thing in the face of overwhelming evidence against your position also isn't an attractive feature... nor is the fact that you haven't bothered to apologize for insulting someone for the comments of another poster.

I can only imagine how any dissagreement you have in a relationship goes... you probably don't budge an inch... insult the guy insessantly... and then when it is all said and done and you are informed that many of your insults were entirely uncalled for, you don't even think to apologize.

Sorry Amy... I'm not convinced that the good women out there are like you.

Only Jason can know whether he asked for advice or not-while it's true that the lead in for this doesn't contain a question, I incorrectly assumed that because he wrote to "the advice goddess" that he might have been looking for advice.

I found much to learn from reading and pondering this thread. I would not have guessed this to be such a contentious issue in 2007-8 with such resistance to hearing it out, much less accepting it. I developed a better sense of where some women and fewer men are with this particular issue and a deeper sense of why some would be so resistant to the notion of equality up front, especially with regard to $$(another dynamic, along with sex, under great change). Those who see themselves losing power or influence in the change in dating dynamics understandably resist it more. From my conversations with many guy friends, I do know that Jason is not an isolated case in desiring a more equal footing at the beginning of the relationship. Regarding Amy's assertions that women are driven to want/insist on this cultural tradition; that does not mean that a large majority can demand it without at least some of them not getting it. The pool of men who find the traditional notion acceptable of making the initial offering looks to be shrinking.

Greg,

I still believe you misunderstand.

I'm not the guy who wrote the lead in... I have only been commenting after the fact about the advice Amy gave to that fellow and the arguments she made in support of her position.

I don't mind that Amy has the opinion that men should always pay, she is entitled to her beliefs on that issue.

What she isn't entitled to however is to grossly distort and manipulate actual science to fit her perspective and thereby allow her to claim that she is "right" instead of it just being her opinion.

Many people do that sort of thing when it isn't warrented... for example, some priests attempted to assert that the big bang theory of the universe was "proof" of god. Others have attempted to assert that the volume of the cranial cavity amongst certain ethnicities was "proof" that one group was inherently less intelligent.

Both of those notions aren't actually supported by science, yet people wih dogmatic belief systems will always try and claim that science is on their side even when it isn't.

If you notice, Amy still talks about this issue as if it is evolutionarily inevitable... even in light of the existance of a human culture that naturally developed behaviors opposite to what her contention would require.

If she wants to give out advice by presenting her opinion more power to her... but when she crosses the line of asserting that science backs her up when it doesn't, then I feel it is important to say something.

Jason,

You're right. I did misunderstand that.

I agree with most of what you wrote. All knowledge is tentative.

After referencing Amy's excellent examples and doing a little research, I do understand where she's coming from. But, as you said, this does not mean that these things are inevitable. I understand her position to support maximizing opportunities to find someone to play nicely with.

While I have paid for first dates and sometimes gladly, I am impressed when a female is willing to challenge that notion. I'm even more impressed when a female understands the basis for the topic. As well, I'm unimpressed(from a dating perspective) with someone who could not get by that. And I'm very unimpressed with a woman who would be adamant about this. I know that this person, from a dating perspective, is likely not for me. Sure, that might mean I'd miss an opportunity or two to develop a relationship with someone wonderful. I consider myself to be a very generous guy with both time and money...and I'd be looking for the same if I were looking.
Saying that "well whoever asks pays" is a red herring, especially when it is meekly followed up that someone thinks its fine that the guy always or most of the time asks. I recoil when I see comments that a man lacks balls (or something to that effect..not a manly man) who doesn't want to "do his duty" in asking and remind myself that a man true to himself doesn't care much whether a woman thinks he is one or not, especially when it comes to retorts that can best be described as feeble attempts to manipulate.

Amy, I love ya, but you're wrong about this.

I've dated women in Japan for 3 years. And guess what? Rarely do they NOT pay their half on dates. I don't even have to ask! It's automatic. As soon as the check comes, they've got their purse out and they're counting-out the yen.

And, let me tell you, it is suh-WEET.

Trust me, these women are checking to see if you're a "provider." How many of these women are eager to date sexy homeless men?

For marriage? Yeah, you're right about that. I enjoyed the half-price dating with a side of sex way too much for marriage, though. ;)

"Trust me, these women are checking to see if you're a "provider." How many of these women are eager to date sexy homeless men?"

I figured the "debate" was over, but since it isn't I'll just draw attention to something here.

Of course no one wants to get involved with someone who is homeless (that goes for both men and women by the way... the women in homeless shelters aren't exactly racking up dates). However, you are acting like the majority of women are stupid... I don't believe that they are. The vast majority of women are quite capable of determining if someone lives on the streets or has a home and a car without having to freeload off of them from the get go.

You want to argue that women look for providers... fine by me. But you will never convince me that the vast majority of women come to the conclusion of whether or not someone is a provider based upon date number one.

The only women who behave that way are women who aren't really interested in the guy to begin with... they just want a free meal from the fellow they aren't really interested in.

In addition, there is an interesting article here:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-mind-of-the-market

The quote I want to draw your attention to is the following:

"Says the moral emotion of “reciprocal altruism,” which evolved over the Paleolithic eons to demand fairness on the part of our potential exchange partners.  “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine” only works if I know you will respond with something approaching parity. The moral sense of fairness is hardwired into our brains and is an emotion shared by most people and primates tested for it. Thousands of experimental trials with subjects from Western countries have consistently revealed a sense of injustice at low-ball offers. Further, we now have a sizable body of data from peoples in non-Western cultures around the world, including those living close to how our Paleolithic ancestors lived, and although their responses vary more than those of modern peoples living in market economies do, they still show a strong aversion to unfairness."

Note how it claims that the moral sense of fairness is "hardwired" into our brains... now here is the question you've failed to address.

Why do you expect men to overcome their "hardwired" sense of fairness, when you don't expect women to overcome what you call their "hardwired" desire to find someone to pay for everything for them?

In either case some hardwired response is being circumvented. That of course suggests what I've said since the beginning of this discussion... neither response is actual hardwired, they are just genetic predispositions and just as some men can overcome their drive to avoid unfair treatment and date freeloading women, some women can overcome their drive to have someone pay for everything for them and deal with their date in the spirit of reciprocal altruism.

Either way someone has to overcome a hardwired response... so exactly why is it your opinion that only men should have to overcome evolution?... it seems like an unjustified double standard to me.

Jason, great, you're back. You never got around to explaining how you've overcome your own evolutionary predispositions by dating ugly women with great personalities. I asked you repeatedly and I'm still waiting for an answer.

Amy,

What you fail to realize no matter how many times I say it is that I am not bound by my biology in the manner that you suggest.

I certainly would be unlikely to date someone whose teeth were falling out and who looked diseased... but the same goes for me associating with someone who looked sickly and unhealthy even outside of a romantic encounter.

Human beings are generally going to avoid other people who appear sickly or diseased.

That being said... if someone isn't sporting D cup breasts and a playboy figure, I'm not going to be inclined to slam the door in the face just because they might be a bit overweight or have split ends.

One of the signs of being an adult is knowing what is best for you and avoiding what might be tempting. The same way I may love chocolate... as a child I might be inclined to eat it until I got sick... as an adult I know better. The same goes for looks versus substance. When I was young I didn't know better, now I do... substance is worth much more, the looks don't factor in to the extent that you are suggesting beyond the normal "stay away from the person with boils" thing. As I said, that applies universally though, not just to women.

So far as I am concerned, my genetic predisposition to look for fairness trumps my genetic predisposition to look for a pretty face... the pretty face will eventually fade, an ugly personality is forever.