I've been dating this girl for just over a month, and she never offers to pay for anything. I was okay with this in the beginning, as I saw it as a courtship thing. I guess I wonder whether this points to problems down the road with her not being a real partner, pulling her weight, etc. How do I politely broach this without blowing up the blooming relationship?

--Feeling Used

This woman lives paycheck to paycheck. Unfortunately, it's your paycheck.

At this point, you're probably musing on the perfect birthday gift for her -- a sparkly little Hello Kitty crowbar she can use to pry open her wallet. However, mystifying as it is that she has never squeaked out the words "This one's on me!" consider that if there's one thing heterosexual men and women have in common these days, it's confusion over who exactly is supposed to pay on dates.

The problem driving the confusion is a sort of Godzilla vs. Mothra clash between age-old evolved emotions (still driving us today) and modern-day beliefs about male and female equality.

As I explain with some frequency (per big cross-cultural studies by evolutionary psychologist David Buss, among others), women evolved to seek male partners who show they are willing and able to invest in any children they might have. Whether the particular woman actually wants children is immaterial -- as in, of zero interest to her emotions.

Anthropologist John Marshall Townsend observes from his research and others' that women's emotions evolved to act as a sort of police force for a man's level of commitment -- making women feel bad when the investment isn't there. This leads women to either push a man to invest or ditch him and find a man who will.

Men coevolved to expect this, meaning that men evolved to try to appeal to the ladies by showing (or successfully faking) generosity, high status, and earning power. Many people mistakenly assume evolved adaptations like this will change with the times, as in, "Ye Olde Evolved Emotions, I'd like to introduce you to Gloria Steinem and the women's movement."

Unfortunately, evolution is not a lickety-split process -- especially when it comes to our psychological engine panel. In fact, anthropologist Donald Symons explains that "natural selection takes hundreds or thousands of generations" (generations being 20- to 30-year periods) "to fashion any complex cognitive adaptation." So women, even now -- even highly successful women who can comfortably pay for their own meals (and everyone else's in the restaurant) -- have their emotions pushing them to look for a man who shows generosity, as well as the ability to "provide."

This is reflected in the findings by sociologist Janet Lever and her colleagues from a survey of heterosexual men and women -- 17,067 "unmarried and non-cohabitating" heterosexuals, ages 18 to 65 -- on the extent to which they embrace or reject the traditional "man pays" dating behavior. (Surprisingly, millennials' responses were generally pretty close percentage-wise to those of older adults -- mostly within a few percentage points.)

A snapshot of the responses from women: Overall, 57 percent of women said yes to "I always offer to help pay even on the first date." But check out the mixed feelings: Many women (39 percent) wished men would reject their offer to pay. But many (40 percent of women) said they are bothered when men don't accept their money. Hello, confusing financial stew!

Men's responses were similarly contradictory. Overall, more than half the men -- 64 percent -- said that after the first few dates, the woman should help pay expenses, and nearly half (44 percent) said they would stop dating a woman who never offers to pay. Yet, men overwhelmingly -- that is, 76 percent of men -- feel guilty if they don't pay the bill on dates.

So, the reality is, like all of these conflicted men, some women just aren't sure where the lines are on whether to chip in and when. (Of course, some women are conveniently unsure.) As for this woman you're seeing, it is possible that she's waiting until you two are "exclusive" to start picking up the tab. Instead of assuming the worst, do two things: First, observe and reflect on her behavior and attitudes -- so far and as you get to know her -- and see whether they suggest an interest in partnership or princess-ship.

Second, simply ask: "Hey, we've been dating for a while, and it seems like we should start sharing the costs. Where do you stand on that?" See what she says and take it from there -- tempting as it is to opt for a passive-aggressive approach, like panhandling outside the restaurant where you're meeting her: "Hey, Amber. You're early!...Meet ya inside. Just trying to beg enough for the tip."

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, oratio sensibus duo ea, doming petentium no pro. Ex illud tantas petentium sed. Id paulo adversarium suscipiantur per, eos probatus vituperata cu. Natum iuvaret accommodare te his. Et has putant appellantur.

Te scripta omnesque vis, assum expetenda sit ex, mel tibique incorrupte voluptatibus ad. Eu splendide voluptatum instructior nam, meliore consequat has ea, mucius corpora eu per. Purto deleniti vix ei, quas scripta corpora his id, semper mediocritatem et per. Diam debet dolores ex ius. Ad vim omittam delicata posidonium, at modo ferri brute cum.

My boyfriend who dumped me says he wants to be friends (talk to me, see me sometimes), but I'm not ready for that because I'm still in love with him. A female co-worker said that if he can be friends, he was never in love with me to begin with -- that if he'd really loved me, he'd hate me now. Is this true?

--Feeling Worse

According to your office Socrates, "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways" should be answered with "I slashed your tires. I sprinkled a strong laxative in your latte. And I'm looking forward to chasing you down the street while waving highly realistic replicas of scary medieval weapons..."

Romantic love actually comes in two flavors -- "passionate" and "companionate" -- explains social psychologist Elaine Hatfield. Passionate love is the initial "wildly emotional," lusty kind that wanes over time. Companionate love, on the other hand, involves "friendly affection and deep attachment" -- deep appreciation for who somebody is and what they do and believe in -- and tends to have more staying power.

The difference between the two is best illustrated in relation to what we'll call "car trouble." Passionate love is what leads to the physics problem of how to have sex in a Porsche in your driveway (because going inside and doing it in the foyer instead would take too long). Companionate love likewise gets two people working out a physics problem in a car; however, it's trying to collectively muster the NASA-level intelligence required to install an infant car seat.

Companionate love does sometimes lead to "I hate you! I hate you"-style loathing, but typically just when there's been a betrayal. But sometimes what people call love is really an unhealthy dependency with sparkly hearts painted on it -- one person using the other as a sort of human grout, to fill the empty spaces in themselves so they can take a shortcut to feeling whole. In this situation, "I'm nothing without you!" really does feel like the case, and who doesn't hate a person who makes them feel like nothing?

However, real love doesn't suddenly curdle into hate. If the respect and the "wow, you're an amazeballs person" and all the rest was there, that remains as a base -- even when the relationship tanks. Even so, this doesn't necessarily mean you should convert your ex into your BFF. What you should do with respect to your ex -- now and in the future -- is whatever works for you, when it works for you. This may mean never seeing or speaking to your ex again -- despite any "love becomes hate!" urging from your co-worker that you owe him a scolding phone call: "If you'd ever really loved me, you'd want the best for me now -- the best undetectable poison money can buy!"

Not to brag, but I'm a very intelligent woman with probably too many degrees. I'm always thrilled when a guy says he's seeking "a smart woman." However, a guy who initially said that just stopped dating me because he finds my intelligence "emasculating." Do all men feel this way? Am I supposed to dumb it down to find a partner?

--Smarts

Men don't mind being corrected by a woman if it's "Oooh, yes...a little more to the right" -- not "I think you meant 'whom,' but hey, no judgments."

The reality is, intellectually average women tend to have an easier time finding a partner. In research by social psychologist Lora E. Park, men imagining their hypothetical ideal partner expressed interest in a woman of high intelligence -- even higher than their own. However, when they were in the same room with a woman and they were were told she scored far better on a math test (getting 90 percent correct versus their 60 percent), the men were less interested in exchanging contact info or planning a date with her.

Park and her colleagues speculate -- per research by evolutionary psychologists reflecting women's preference for male partners who are higher-achieving than they are -- that being intellectually "outperformed" by women leads men to experience "diminished feelings of masculinity." (Understandable -- as nothing quite ignites romance like needing to coax your date out from under the couch: "Why are you hiding? I promised not to hurt you with my mind!")

The answer for you, as a very smart woman, isn't dumbing down; it's being selective about the men you date (while recognizing that there are brainiacs working as, say, cabinetmakers). Assuming you aren't chasing guys away by lording over them -- "Well, hello...intellectual earthworm!" -- it's probably best to narrow your search parameters to the highly intelligent: men who won't feel like their IQ test results, in comparison with yours, would read something like "Water every other day, and place in indirect sunlight."

This annoying guy at my gym keeps asking me out. I'm always polite, saying, "Would love to, but sorry, I'm really busy." And then I move to another part of the gym. I'd go at a different time, but unfortunately, he's always there in the hours I can work out. What should I say so he gets the hint and leaves me alone?

--Go Away Already!

There are people -- some of them men -- who won't take no for an answer. But you haven't tried no -- or any of the variations: "Nuh-uh," "Are you crazy?" or "The only way you're ever getting into my pants is if you're trying on ladies clothing at Goodwill."

Women have a tendency to be hinty and otherwise indirect in telling a guy they aren't interested. As personal security expert Gavin de Becker puts it in "The Gift of Fear": "Rejecting women often say less than they mean," and "men often hear less than what is said." Men's poor, um, hearing actually seems to be an evolutionary design feature. Research by evolutionary psychologists Martie Haselton and David Buss suggests that men evolved to be poor guessers about women's sexual interest in them -- erring on the side of assuming a woman's interested when they have no definitive sign that she isn't (as in adult variations on "off my case, toilet face!").

As Buss explains the likely benefit from this "sexual overperception bias," it leads men "to believe that a woman is sexually interested in them in response to ambiguous cues such as a smile or going to a bar alone," and thus functions to keep men from "missing sexual opportunities." (Or -- in somewhat less scientific terms -- it gives a man a chance at passing his genetic material on to the next generation instead of into an old tube sock.)

You don't have to be cruel, but something a little more hope-crushing than "I'd love to" would be a start. Saying you're "busy" doesn't cut it, as it suggests that all that's keeping the guy from getting into your ladybusiness are scheduling conflicts. The most effective rejection is a direct one -- like this one I suggested in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck": "Thanks so much. I'm really flattered, but I'm sorry to say that I'm just not interested." Though "I'm flattered" might seem condescending, it softens the blow -- without being misleading. It suggests that you believe the person you're rejecting has some merits, as opposed to what may actually be the truth: "I would rather be pecked to death by angry hens than have sex with you."

This hot guy I met online lied about his height. We got together, and I'm like 3 inches taller than he is. That doesn't bother me, but I'm worried that his height is a source of insecurity for him (since he lied about it on his profile).

--Skyscraper

You can't always find your one and only, but you can sometimes find your three-quarters and only.

It isn't a surprise that this guy, in calculating his height, added in the vintage ottoman he was standing on when he took the photo. While there are breast men, leg men, butt men, and even toe men, in female preferences for men's appearance, across cultures, there's one thing that really, really matters, and it's height. (Guilty: I've joked about getting one of those amusement park signs to post over my bed, "Must be this tall to ride this ride.")

Research by evolutionary social psychologist Gert Stulp suggests that women, in general, find it "unacceptable" to be taller than the man they're with and prefer to be substantially shorter (ideally a whole 8 inches shorter; so, say, 5'6" to a man's 6'2"). As for why women evolved to prefer taller men, though being tall doesn't always mean being stronger (and thus better able to protect a woman), tallness points to physical health. (If a man's body is riddled with parasites, his metabolic resources get invested in battling the little buggers instead of upward growth.)

In modern times, some men try to cheat their way taller, with dating profile fudgery, shoes with built-in "lifts," and strong hair gel (the essential ingredient in a towering pompadour). However, a short man isn't necessarily short on self-worth. According to Stulp and his colleagues, shorter men's dissatisfaction with their height seems linked to the general preference by women for taller men. This makes sense, considering how bad it feels to know your partner doesn't find you all that attractive. But since that isn't a problem here, let him know. And you might also keep in mind that good things do, as they say, "come in small packages": gum, Shetland ponies...and, hey, Ron Jeremy is a short dude. (Uh, not all over.)

I've been with my boyfriend for nine months. We are both in our late 20s and go out drinking a lot with our friends. I've noticed that when he's drunk, he'll be super affectionate and say really gushy things about me, our getting married, etc. Are his true feelings coming out, or is he just talking lovey-dovey because of the booze?

--Bridal Hopes

You've got to be wondering what it would take for you two to live happily ever after...cirrhosis?

Many people insist that their personality changes dramatically when they're all likkered up. Remind them of some outrageous thing they did the other night at the bar and they'll go all protest-y -- "But that wasn't the real me!" -- and point the finger at Jack, Jose, or the Captain (as in, Daniel, Cuervo, or Morgan). The reality is, research on drinking's effects on personality by clinical psychologist Rachel Winograd finds that beyond one area of personality -- extroverson, which increases slightly in drunken people -- we're all pretty much the same jerks (or whatever) that we are when we're sober.

This consistency that Winograd and her colleagues observe makes sense vis-a-vis how psychologists find that personality has a strong genetic component and involves habitual patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behavior. (There are five major personality dimensions: conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability, openness to experience, and extroversion.) And though the Winograd team did find a small increase in extroversion, a body of research finds that personality traits are largely consistent across time and situations.

However, the skeptic in you might ask: If personality doesn't change after, say, three Sriracha margaritas, how come we've all seen people behaving differently when they're sauced? Well, according to research by social psychologists Claude M. Steele and Robert A. Josephs, the behavioral changes of drunken excess appear to be caused not by alcohol itself but by alcohol-driven changes in perception that they call "alcohol myopia." Alcohol appears to restrict attention, giving a person a sort of tunnel vision for whatever's right in front of them.

To explain this more simply, alcohol basically turns a person into the chimp version of themselves -- focusing on whatever's right in their face and experiencing simple basic emotions in response, like fear, lust, anger, or blubbering affection. Meanwhile, alcohol diminishes their ability for mental processing of any complexity -- most notably the sort of thinking that normally leads a person to say, "Well, on the other hand..." (that little voice of reason that pipes up in more sober moments).

Interestingly, the research on alcohol myopia debunks a widely believed myth -- the assumption that getting drunk will necessarily lead a person to be much less inhibited. It may, but it may also lead the other way -- to increased inhibition and less risk taking. That may be hard to believe when you're watching your brother, the uptight accountant, do a drunken striptease on the bar. However, recall that whatever's right in front of the sloshed person's face tends to drive how restrained or unrestrained their behavior is.

A fascinating example of this comes from field research by psychologist Tara MacDonald and her colleagues. Patrons entering a bar got their hands stamped -- seemingly just to allow them to re-enter without standing in line again. Some had their hands stamped with the ominous warning (within a little circle) "AIDS KILLS." Others got a circle containing the nebulous statement "SAFE SEX" or -- in the control group -- a smiley face. The 372 hand-stamped participants were later divided into two groups based on blood alcohol level. (Those with a blood alcohol level that was .08 percent or above were the "intoxicated group.")

The researchers found that the "intoxicated" people with the smiley or "SAFE SEX" stamp were more likely than sober participants to have sex without a condom. However, intoxicated people with the fear-inducing "AIDS KILLS" message expressed less willingness to have unprotected sex than even sober people the researchers surveyed. This is right in line with how alcohol leads to "tunnel vision" that makes whatever's right in front of a person especially prominent.

Getting back to your boyfriend's drunken mushygushies, consider how the tunnel vision of alcohol myopia likely plays out for him as he looks at you in the moment at the bar: "She's so sparkly and nice..." What's missing, however, is all the adult complexity -- all that "on the other hand..." thinking that he'd likely do in more sober moments: whether you two can make it as lifelong partners, whether he's up for creating little people who'd call him Daddy, etc. In other words, there's probably some stuff he still needs to figure out. Give it some time -- tempting as it is to use the findings about alcohol myopia to answer the question "How will you make him hurry up and propose?" Two words: "open bar."

My friend and I are debating why it is that men don't want you when you want them yet they're all gung-ho when you aren't interested. She believes that we just want what we can't have. Could it be that simple?

--Pondering

In looking for love, a number of people confuse "the chase" with something closer to criminal stalking. In their defense, these ideas don't come out of nowhere. For example, consider how creepy the Cupid dude with the little bow and arrow actually is. Basically, he's the chubby baby version of the maniac hunting people down with a crossbow.

The reality is, nobody pines for what's easy to get or, worse, what's chasing madly after them. It's about value. Being easy to get or seeming desperate suggests one has what anthropologists call "low mate value." Social psychologist Robert Cialdini explains this with "the scarcity principle," which describes how the less available something is the more valuable it seems and the more we want it. Being scarce doesn't necessarily equate to being more valuable; however, because of how psychologically painful we find regret -- feeling that we screwed up and thus missed out -- scarcity kicks us into a motivational state, making us all hot for whatever's in short supply.

This is the sales principle behind those chichi boutiques with just one item on a rack, as if they were a mini museum of the little black dress. There's a good chance they have 20 more in the back. But putting out 20 sends a different message -- like one of those shops with a big yellow sign, "Everything in the store, $15, including the dog."

Still, the scarcity principle sometimes gets falsely accused of causing a burgeoning relationship to tank when other factors are actually to blame. Consider whether you're choosing wisely -- going for someone who's ready to be in a relationship. Some people who think they're ready may not be. (Time -- along with wanting to know instead of just wanting to believe -- will tell.) Others will admit that they aren't ready. Believe them -- or at least tread cautiously -- and recognize the propensity many women have for Svengali-ette-alism: "I'll be the one to change him!" (Kleenex has succeeded as a brand in no small part thanks to these women.)

With someone who is a real possibility, you'll have your best shot by coming off appropriately interested instead of stalkerishly so. If you tend to go from zero to texting a guy 36 times in a row while sitting in your car with binoculars trained on his house, figure out proactive ways to avoid that and other crazypants stuff you do. (Perhaps, for example, give your next-door neighbor custody of your phone and car keys upon coming home.) Sure, love is said to be "a journey," but it shouldn't be one that has something in common with being chased by feral hogs down a lonely country road.

My sweet boyfriend always leaves his nose hair and beard trimmings in the sink. He claims he forgets to wipe up afterward and asks, "Is it that big of a deal?" Am I being petty, or is this disrespectful when you share a space with somebody?

--Annoyed

Surely, your boyfriend eventually notices dropped bits of beard hair -- about when the sink starts panting and pawing in response to "Here, boy!"

However, chances are he's leaving you a furry sink not out of disrespect but because he goes into a behavioral coma. This comes out of how our brain conserves energy by creating stored strings of behavior. The first time you ride a bike or eat with a spoon, you have to put conscious thought into each step. But with time and practice, the sequence becomes automatic and unconscious. Eventually, when you get a bowl of oatmeal, you just eat; you don't need to figure out how to load up the spoon and manage that "Bzzzz, here comes Mr. Airplane..." thing that transports the oatmeal to Mr. Tummy.

Research on habit change by psychologist Wendy Wood and her colleagues suggests that "disrupting" the usual physical sequence of a stored behavior can jolt a person out of autopilot, triggering their conscious mind to take over. You can disrupt your boyfriend's beard-snipping routine simply by changing where the scissors get stored. Maybe put them in a kitchen cabinet for a while -- and of course, clue him in and explain why.

Yes, this could actually work to get him to remember your "Yoo-hoo...sinkiepoo!" However, what ultimately matters is how you treat each other. If your sink continues to have a five o'clock shadow, maybe decide to just laugh about your sweet daydreamy slob instead of going all toxic-ragey "I'll show him!" and throwing out the beard clippings yourself -- by dragging the sink to the curb.