Myself, I can't picture saying something like that.

I'd consider it undignified.

However, if I take a woman out, and she ends up costing me a ridiculous sum of money, and doesn't put out, she's not going to get asked out twice.

Unreasonable of me? I don't believe so.

Some years ago I went out on a date with a girl (first date with her) and took her to a favorite Italian restaurant of mine, this was in Europe, so it was even more expensive. I ordered from the middle range of the menu for myself...she ordered the most expensive meal, the most expensive wine, the most expensive entree, and after all that, the most expensive desert. My dinner cost about $50, hers cost over $300.

Being me, I let it go at the time, paid the bill, and we left, I kissed her good night and the evening ended. I didn't call her back.

One of her friends approached me a few days later and asked why I never called her back.

I told her the evening was fun, but not $300 fun.

Most women I think, don't pull that kind of thing, but I suspect most of those men who do that undignified "you're paying for you" thing, have encountered that sort of woman at one point or another.

The guy is clearly a follower of what's known as the "seduction community". See "The Game" by Neil Strauss.

My question is what kind of women is he going to attract with that kind of approach? The terminally insecure? I have been out with men who did not know how to date before and have ended up taking them out before they took me out. In fact I have been married to one of those guys for 28 years. I also think it is ok to go dutch treat on the first couple of dates but you should, in my opinion not be going to a budget buster kind of a place where either of you might feel uncomfortable or beyond their means. I don't think first encounters or even second encounters should be at budget buster types of places. It should be coffee at Starbucks, or a bagel at Einstein Brothers. The purpose of a date is to talk and explore common interests not to test the limits of your date's credit card. Isabel

Depends how old he is.

When I was younger, we would usually go dutch. As I got older, guys got more and more insistant on paying and would get touchy if I didn't let them. I always did the reach for my bag thing, so he could save face if he wasn't offering to treat me.

No one ever told me in advance that I would be paying. That would be odd.

If he's worried about costs he should do a low-key date like coffee.

Robert, $300 on the first date? That's crazy.

Coffee or a walk or something is a good first date. Dinner at an Indian or Thai place where the entrees are $12 is a good first date. A movie is a good first date. An indie band concert with a $10 cover is a good first date.

A fancy restaurant is a good anniversary date.

Well, I'd be torn because anybody that weird is probably going to make for one entertaining story to tell my friends after the date, but I'd probably not go as I wouldn't want to waste my time with anyone so odd, bitter, or whatever that he's going into a first date with this kind of attitude.

That is just about the tackiest thing I've ever heard. I would think the same if it happened the other way around-girl asks out guy then informs him that he'll be paying his own way. A first date is supposed to be an act of good faith to get to know someone better, and if the guy isn't willing to spend $10-20 in good way, then why bother?

*in good faith

A man who does this is obviously preoccupied with money and not always because he doesn't have it. I hate stinginess in a person and someone with financial hang ups like this man ae likely to be selfish and stingy emotionally. It's not that I expect a man to always pay and I have always offered to pick up my end or even the whole tab, but if he announced beforehand that I was expected to pay I'd tell him I'd let him know how dinner was.

Early on in my dating career, I believed that "going dutch" was the respectful way to treat an empowered, liberal woman in this (that) day and age.

I was swiftly corrected.

My reaction would be it's not a date. If we wanted to hang as friends, I'd go. Otherwise, no. I always offer to pay, but to be told I'd be paying for myself by someone who supposedly wants the pleasure of my company and to get to know me better? No.

He sounds like a cheap prick.

I can just see him in a long term relationship (if he could get that far)..."Hey, *HOW* much did you say your tampons were? WHAT?! You don't need brand named tampons! You're allowance is now cut in half! And no, you don't need to buy a fancy Hallmark birthday card for your mom. Make your own using the back of a used sheet of printer paper from out of the paper recycling can at work!"

If a friend ask if I wanted to go out to dinner and she mentioned money up front ("oh and by the way I'm not actually treating you, we'll be going dutch") I'd be put off. Generally, with my friends, it's low key and just about getting together. None of us are in a position to pick up a whole tab. So this isn't about some expectation I have of men who want to take me out.

It is just all around awkward and weird of someone to bring up money and who will pay what in a conversation before any costs are even incurred. It's one thing to say "Do you mind going somewhere cheap? Money's tight this week!" But this guy's move seem self-important and even a little controlling. He's setting up a big rule and not allowing for a discussion about it before the date happens.

Women should never go on a date unprepared to pay for at least their own food but to be told in advance is so weird and off-putting I'd probably stare at this douche with a blank expression and walk away.

"You're allowance "

...YOUR allowance. I've been doing a shit job w/ all things related to writing today. If I make any more grammar/spelling/word use mistakes please assume I'm over tired and that I know better :-)

Ditto for what Gretchen said. There's just no polite way I can picture, "Hey, I know a great little restaurant across the street. Wanna go? I mean, you'd have to pay your own way..." for that awkward first date moment.

I have no problem with paying my own way. But there is a more polite way to do it. As many have mentioned, if money is the problem (and not a fixation on letting a woman get a free meal out of you, how-dare-she), you can always do something super cheap. I like the idea of something simple like a bagel or hell, just taking a gal to a little unknown cheap food place (my hubby loves to do that with me).

There's also a much nicer set up line. Maybe it's just my crowd, but I see nothing impolite in going, "Mind if maybe we went on a walk through the weekend Art Market instead? Money's a little tight."

But I gotta say, I'd be turned off if the first thing a guy said after asking me out was "you pay your own way." It just doesn't seem classy, and I honestly can't find a way to make it sound polite. It sounds so defensive, as if he already suspects you're a golddigger.

Of course, in my opinion, a lady should offer to pay her own way for the first few dates. To be turned down on that offer is one thing, to assume it is a little uppity I think, in this day and age.

Mostly what Momof4 said, except that I don't offer to pay. But yeah, if it's dutch, it's not a date - it's a friendly outing. If it's a date, one person pays, and not necessarily the guy, but whoever does the asking. I also don't think the woman should ask for the first date. I think the man should ask the woman out the first time.

After he's taken her out twice, she should ask him to do something - either propose an outing or invite him over for dinner or something - this demonstrates that she's actually interested and not just trying to score free meals off of him.

Also, apparently Robert's date never learned that you should take your cue from the person paying regarding what price bracket you should choose from ;-)

Oh, lastly - I don't agree with the thought that some guys have that they're paying for sex. No, you're paying for the pleasure of my company. If things go well and we like each other sex may come of it, but I don't OWE you anything for taking me out aside from a thank you.

If you invite someone to dinner, you should expect to pay, regardless of whether the other person is a potential mate, or just a pal. That's simple manners, romance and/or feminism don't even enter into the matter.

Huh. I'd actually be ok with it. I like it when people spell out expectations up front!

Then again, I always offered to pay my half once the check came, anyway. Some people let me, and some treated. I really don't see what the big deal is.

Apparently the dude needs to be dating Asperger chicks! :D

It's all about who issues the invitation. If he's asking her out, then he needs to pick a place he can afford, even if it's only the coffee shop across the street. If she's asking, then she pays.

If I ask friends over for dinner, I don't ask them to bring their own dinner or pay for their share. The same principle applies.

I’m torn between thinking “he’s really honest, and I kind of like that,” and “he sounds like a jerk.” I think everyone appreciates honesty, but he seems to lack any tact. I’d be worried he thinks it’s okay to be too upfront about everything, including that my butt looks gross in certain jeans. I can certainly understand that he might not want to play games and pretend like he is going to pay, when really he won’t; he doesn’t want a girl to come to a date without any money and get embarrassed, BUT I’d be very put off by someone who asked me to bring my own cash (I always have some cash on me, and I would expect to pay for myself anyway). I know it isn’t like he knows me yet, but I’d be thinking, “Okay he’s already lumped me in with the money-hungry, free-loading female type” and I think that would send up a red flag too. It would really depend on how he phrased it, a lot of people have given acceptable examples. It probably wouldn’t be an automatic “no way” for me, especially if he was good looking and seemed otherwise interesting, but it would definitely keep me watching for other indicators that he’s a jerk during the date.

No.
"It sounds so defensive, as if he already suspects you're a golddigger." Exactly.

And, since you all don't know me, I'll be completely honest here: If you can't afford to buy me dinner, you can't afford to date me. If you're just being cheap... well, fuck you. I guess it's part of that whole, "women prefer men who are providers" thing.

I wouldn't expect five-star dining on a first date, anyway. Mexican food or something casual is fine.

If we're going dutch, it's not a date.

I agree with those who say whoever asks pays. When I was dating, I took a couple of women out to movies and a couple of others out for dinner. In each case I paid. Also, in each case, we went out for drinks after dinner or dessert and coffee after the movie and all of the women picked up the tab.

When I asked someone out for dinner, I made sure that it was in my price range to buy dinner, dessert, and a drink or two or three.

If a woman asked me out and told me that I was paying for my own dinner, I would probably go. If I liked her enough, I would ask for a second date and say something like, "We're going Dutch again, right?" to see her reaction. If she was fine with that, great. If she expected me to pay, I would see her as a "What's mine is mine and what's your's is ours" type of person.

Well, at least he's putting the fact that he's a douchebag out there right from the start.

"...If I invite a woman out, I ask her to pay in advance."

He doesn't mean he asks her to put money in escrow or something for the date, but that when he asks her out, he lets her know she'll be paying for herself.

Can't resist getting pedantic here. If that's what he means, he should say "I ask her in advance to pay."

He's a douchebag.
http://www.douchebagnamegenerator.com/

If he says all that up front, (1) it's not a date, and (2) either: he's not seriously interested, he's reading "The Game," he's cheap, or else he's got some kind of "prove you're not a gold-digger" chip on his shoulder. Any one of them is a total turnoff.

I mean, seriously -- how does he even get all that out there when he's asking for a date? "Hi, will come out to the movies with me on Saturday night? By the way, you're paying for your own ticket." AAAWWKKward.

If he wants to keep the financial stakes low (and that's fair enough), he can ask me out for coffee and a walk in the park or something. That's both romantic and cheap. A guy wouldn't lose any points at all for asking me on a first date like that. Actually, he'd get extra points (more than he would for a fancy dinner) if he asked me to go for a run or a bike ride, followed by coffee or breakfast (since I run and bike).

I'm no gold-digger. I'm someone who expects to pull my full financial weight in a relationship. But a first date -- he who asks, pays.

Anne said: Oh, lastly - I don't agree with the thought that some guys have that they're paying for sex. No, you're paying for the pleasure of my company. If things go well and we like each other sex may come of it, but I don't OWE you anything for taking me out aside from a thank you.

Like it or not, Anne, there's a word for women who charge money for their company. The professionals are just a little more honest about what they are.

If sex is out of the picture, can you please explain why your time is so much more valuable than a man's time, such that he needs to compensate you with a meal or whatever to even out the difference? Do you really think you're so entertaining to talk to that people should have to pay to have a conversation with you?

My own personal view is, if a woman doesn't like my company enough on its own as a reason to spend time with me, and she requires some extra compensation, then I won't date her. I'm not against treating a woman to dinner or whatever once it's been established that we have a mutual attraction for each other and it's going somewhere. However, I don't believe in buying women stuff (dinner/movies/whatever) as a means of making her like me.

I support the concept of if you ask anyone out to dinner, you pay, with an exception for when you are going out in a group, and there are clear delineations. For example, two couples go to dinner and a movie together--the couples each pay their part of the bill.

Oh, and everyone, especially you ladies re this: "I’d be worried he thinks it’s okay to be too upfront about everything, including that my butt looks gross in certain jeans."

A gross butt looks gross in everything and nothing. A fine butt looks fine in everything and nothing. The butt is the determinant of grossness or lack thereof, the jeans or other covering have almost no contribution to make.

In case anyone was unclear on that unrelated issue. ;)

Spork said:
"If sex is out of the picture, can you
please explain why your time is so much
more valuable than a man's time, such
that he needs to compensate you with a
meal or whatever to even out the
difference? Do you really think you're
so entertaining to talk to that people
should have to pay to have a
conversation with you?"

Spork -- Simple. Because he invited me out.

And don't start the whore thing. If you read my comment above, you'll see that I advocate pulling my own weight in a relationship. But if he invites me out on a first date, I expect he'll pay. He can make it coffee, if he likes. But it's his invite, his dime.

This is good manners even in many non-date situations by the way. E.g., when an interviewer takes a job seeker to lunch, for example, the interviewer generally pays. (Even though the interviewee presumably really wants that job.) When someone asks me to their home for dinner, I don't expect to be handed a bill. I expect that at some point I'll reciprocate by asking him or her to dinner.

I would be totally caught off guard by a comment like that. If I knew the guy pretty well and had been flirting hard for a date, I might stammer out something along the lines of "aaahh....ummm...sure...I guess". I'd regret agreeing because I know it wouldn't work out. I'd presume he was either really stingy or damaged somehow to assume that every woman is a gold digger.

If I didn't really know the guy and hadn't been trying to get him to ask me out, I think my jaw would drop and then I'd either laugh or just walk away.

I also believe a first date should be inexpensive and wouldn't even agree to something fancy on a first date. I always offer to pay my share. However, I would assume that if the guy let me, he wouldn't be calling me back for a second date.

By a third or fourth date, its time to start reciprocating and the cost can start to go up.

Why do people assume that if you don't like it, it must be Game? Game is all about signalling, and this mostly signals that a guy is a tightwad.

Of course there's a tactful way to do this.

As another poster mentioned, going Dutch used to be a very common practice for the first few dates in many communities.

"... that's great! I'm really looking forward to spending some time with you... I was thinking of - oh, and I usually 'go Dutch' for the first few dates, is that OK with you? Or we could just grab something at and just talk - what do you think?"

Up front and diplomatic, soliciting the other person's opinion in shaping the date.
What's wrong with that?

... AND focused on the want-to-get-to-know-you rather than on the money.

HTML processor dropped some words in brackets:

"... that's great! I'm really looking forward to spending some time with you... I was thinking of (Restaurant) - oh, and I usually 'go Dutch' for the first few dates, is that OK with you? Or we could just grab something at (cafe/bar) and sit and talk - what do you think?"

Just as an aside, and not to cast any aspersions,

"No, you're paying for the pleasure of my company. If things go well and we like each other sex may come of it, but I don't OWE you anything for taking me out aside from a thank you."

For kicks someday, you may wish to visit the adult services section of craigslist and read the disclaimers that providers of these services attach to their advertisements to keep them safe, legally.

Gail did a pretty good job of addressing the whole "whore" thing. I'll address the rest of your comment:

Spork said:
"If sex is out of the picture, can you
please explain why your time is so much
more valuable than a man's time, such
that he needs to compensate you with a
meal or whatever to even out the
difference? Do you really think you're
so entertaining to talk to that people
should have to pay to have a
conversation with you?"

If you'll read carefully, Spork, I never said sex was out of the picture - just that I don't OWE you sex merely because you took me to dinner. In a perfect world, women wouldn't accept a date with someone they weren't attracted to (I do, by the way, abide by this rule). That means that if the date goes well AND the relationship progresses that I may very well have sex with you. My point, however, is that you buying my dinner does not seal me into a binding contract to have sex with you.

To further touch upon some issues you brought up - I'm not sure if my post rubbed you the wrong way, or if you're a "modern" man or what, but yes. Any woman (not just myself) is worth the effort that a man makes to take them out (or she should be - otherwise it's a lousy date). Amy could probably phrase this much better than I'm doing, but I'm trying :-) The difference between paying a hooker $100 and taking a woman on a $100 date is this: with the hooker, all you want is sex, with the woman, you are interested in HER - in getting to know her, in potentially entering into a relationship with her. It is an investment, as opposed to a transaction.

Clarifications and whatnot: I don't think a man needs to spend $100 bucks on a date, certainly, but I would think (not that I have experience with it) that $100 is probably the minimum to acquire a hooker that at least has all her teeth. Also, I don't expect a man to ALWAYS pay, nor do I expect a man to always invite. I expect the invitee to pay and I expect the man to invite for the first and second dates. After that, I think that the woman needs to start asking the guy out at least once every third date if not every other. Furthermore, I think that women of character and integrity would not / should not let a man take them out that they would never sleep with - that's called using someone, and it's wrong.

"Apparently the dude needs to be dating Asperger chicks! :D"

heeeyyyyy. be nice. ;)

I'm with Isabelle and Gretch.

I do like what Robert had to say too. I think it's bad manners to ask someone out in a dating arrangement and not pay. I also think it's bad manners to make someone empty their bank account on a first date, or for anything under an established relationship.

It's about manners....hmmmm. Hey, Amy, do you cover this in your book? :)

rather, it should be "short of an established relationship".

1. Paying early on vastly increases the professional daters you will encounter. And this vastly increase your dating costs.

I did an experiment. (I'm using the word 'experiment' loosely.) I made sure that the first meeting was not a date. I only dated only women I actually knew. If I didn't know the woman, it was just two acquaintances getting together. That's not a date, so it's dutch at the table.

Besides being fair, this procedure was also a qualifier. It ensured the woman was not "dating for dinner."

Last year, on the advice of Amy and others here, I spent three months paying, instead of qualifying so early on. I got many more dates, but sure enough most of them were just "dating for dinner."

Women here have said that if the guy isn't paying it's not a date. But during my experiment, when I paid early on, women most often said they "just want to be friends" or "this is just two friends going out" and stuff like that.

Well, if it's just friends then why am I paying? If we're two strangers getting to know one another, then why am I paying? Neither of those situations is a date, it's "just friends."

Paying early on vastly increases the professional daters you will encounter. And this vastly increase your dating costs.

2. Like it or not ladies, dating is an economic decision.

Women do not fully grasp just how expensive dating really is. That's because they think in terms of single engagements, not a campaign. You have to meet lots of women to find one you like and who likes you.

I've done a simple utility tree analysis. With reasonable assumptions, like 1 out of 5 women you meet for a first date will be suitable for a second date. I set reasonable costs for dates, increasing in expense as you get further along in dating. To meet one woman you can seriously relate with - you're going to spend around $5,000 and about six months. Dating is a huge investment for man to make.

Of course, men are going to look for ways to be economically more efficient. One way is to cull out golddiggers often, even if you also cull some good women too.

3. Responses

I also think it is ok to go dutch treat on the first couple of dates but you should, in my opinion not be going to a budget buster kind of a place where either of you might feel uncomfortable or beyond their means. I don't think first encounters or even second encounters should be at budget buster types of places. It should be coffee at Starbucks, or a bagel at Einstein Brothers. The purpose of a date is to talk and explore common interests not to test the limits of your date's credit card. (Isabel)

Yes, exactly. But then you're agreeing with the fellow, and me, even while saying he'll get only insecure women. Are you insecure? Doesn't seem so. You seem fair-minded, non-exploitative. If you have a nice figure, I'd like to meet you for coffee, or an orange drink.

I'd probably not go as I wouldn't want to waste my time with anyone so odd, bitter (Fink)

Then his approach is working. You might be a nice gal, but you don't seem the sort to pitch in. Better to discard you or have you self-select someone else. You're too risky for this guy, and for me, to risk dating resources. No offense. You might me cool. But I'm willing to let a few cool ladies go than deal with lots of professional daters. Not that you're one.

A first date is supposed to be an act of good faith to get to know someone better, and if the guy isn't willing to spend $10-20 in good way, then why bother? (Shannon)

Because you're not the only woman he's dating. If you do the utility tree, you'll see that it's quite expensive. Again, suppose it's 1 out of 5. you gotta meet 5 to get 1 to the second date Then you gotta meet five more get 1 to the third date. And so on. We're talking thousands for dollars by the time we're done. A man's got to be selective.

Early on in my dating career, I believed that "going dutch" was the respectful way to treat an empowered, liberal woman in this (that) day and age. I was swiftly corrected. (Pseudonym)

You mean, when you paid, yo encountered lots of men who weren't interested in relating with you. They just wanted to sleep with you? Well, men encounter women who just want free stuff, and won't sleep with them.

Like I've said many times before. Mate selection is not just cooperative, it's also competitive. So?

I always offer to pay, but to be told I'd be paying for myself by someone who supposedly wants the pleasure of my company and to get to know me better? No. (Momof4)

Ah. The hubris of the man-hater. You're just the kind of woman the fellow wants to say no. He's also offering you the pleasure of his company.

The trade he offers is pleasure for pleasure. It's not your pleasure with his money. you're just the kind of misguided slut this guy wants to avoid. So, his approach is once again validated.

None of us are in a position to pick up a whole tab. So this isn't about some expectation I have of men who want to take me out....It is just all around awkward and weird of someone to bring up money and who will pay what in a conversation before any costs are even incurred. (Gretchen)

Gretchen, you are so hot, I'd even think about paying.

The very expectation that's absent among your friends is present between people who date. Money is important. Money is scarce. Most relationships fail because of money. Now maybe you disagree with the degree to which this guy uses money to disqualify women, but you can't argue against it as a matter of kind. On first dates, of course we look at how people handle things, including money.

No, you're paying for the pleasure of my company. If things go well and we like each other sex may come of it, but I don't OWE you anything for taking me out aside from a thank you. (Anne)

But who's paying for the pleasure of the man's company?

This kind of thinking. It's what makes men think women are either unintelligent as a group or supremely venal as individuals. Do you not see, Anne, how little you value the company of men? Do you not see how little value men?

You will not trade "pleasure of company" for "pleasure of company." You must be paid, like a prostitute, for your company. Either you put out, or the fellow should discard you.

If you invite someone to dinner, you should expect to pay, regardless of whether the other person is a potential mate, or just a pal. (COOP)

Nonsense. We agree to meet people all the time without the expectation of payment.

If I ask friends over for dinner, I don't ask them to bring their own dinner or pay for their share. The same principle applies. (MonicaP)

No it doesn't. He's not asking you to his place. I'm sure he'd be willing to pay if you'd just pop over naked.

We agree to meet people all the time without the expectation of payment. This is just obvious.

If you can't afford to buy me dinner, you can't afford to date me. (ahw)

Exactly! He shouldn't date you. And his approach ensured that he didn't waste scarce money and time on you. It also didn't waste your time. So, his approach worked. Nice.

4. Parting shots

The argument from manners, "who asks pays," fails.

The argument from female vanity, "pay for the pleasure of my company," fails.

The argument from effectiveness, "I wouldn't go out with him," fails.

The fellow's approach works, but it also discards lots of nice women too. For a guy with scarce resources - emotional, financial, temporal - that's not really a problem but a benefit.

Gail,

Anne also said this: "I also don't think the woman should ask for the first date. I think the man should ask the woman out the first time." As well as: "After he's taken her out twice, she should ask him to do something - either propose an outing or invite him over for dinner or something"

I think both of these statements help support Spork's later question and take the sting out of your claim he is calling you/Anne a whore.

Since this is not a feminist website, I'll say if that's how you women want to view that, that's your business. However, there still is the logical question from Anne's statements of why the penis is forced to ask the vagina out on two or more dates that the penis pays for. My guess is that the answer to that is sexist and justifies as well why the vagina is paid less for her work.

Jeff,

I mostly agree, but who knows, maybe women when asking their female friends out for a dinner or a movie or a drink as friends not as a date, do expect to pay for that!?

That might explain other behaviors too, like how it seems some women have some weird demand that if they call a female friend on day X, that on day X+1 it is their friend's responsibility to initiate the phone call to them, and if that phone call is not made, it is an insult or something.

To follow up on my earlier comment, as a follower of game, I'd pay for the first date of any woman I go out with, if I was looking to get laid. HOWEVER, if I was looking for a good woman, I'd go dutch.

And yes, Anne is a prostitute. Not one of those you find on a street corner, but a prostitute. Once she set a price on nothing but herself, she crossed the line from woman to object.

In terms of going for dinner with a friend, I believe there is a difference between, "Would you like to join me for dinner?" and "Hey, we should get together sometime, maybe grab some dinner?"

I'm saying there's a difference between an invitation for dinner and a get together over dinner. One suggests that the invitee is paying and the other is a dutch thing.

Jeff, I am curious about your date criteria and how you meet women. You clearly go out on a lot of dates, so I'm wondering why you can't seem to distinguish between "professional dater", just-want-to-be-friends women and women who are actually interesting and interested in you BEFORE you actually ask them out.

"If you do the utility tree, you'll see that it's quite expensive..."

This right here is why I don't "date" anymore. As a rule. I will meet people and decide if I want to share time with them (without expectations) and see where that takes me, but no more mechanical, antiquated dating for moi! AND NO MORE BLIND DATES for heaven's sake. Not sharing my time with anyone currently any way at the moment because I am not gonna drag some poor bastard through my personal landminds...but still, when I do decide the time is right, it won't be "dating".

Jerry,

Can we make a deal? I won't call you a penis if you won't call me a vagina. It sorta creeps me out. (I'd put in an emoticon here, but I hate emoticons. I hate LOL too. But the sentiment is there.)

From a logic point of view, you may well have a point. But the thing is, manners -- and signalling -- aren't about logic. Manners dictate "you ask, you pay". Signalling, based on years of dating in our culture, dictates "if he doesn't pay for the first date, he's either not interested or else he's cheap, has a chip on his shoulder, etc." And it works in the reverse. I've talked about this issue with my male friends, and they all, without exception, stated that if a woman insists on paying for a first date, they either assume she's not interested, or they devalue her in some measure. What's a girl (or a man) to do? My own solution is that you stick to Miss Manners' "you ask, you pay". The first date should be cheap -- coffee! it costs a couple bucks! -- and low-key, and the other party reciprocates and even things up later. If the first date is a total bust -- well, it was a cup of coffee. If you take a woman on a $300 first date, well, that's just silly. Speaking for myself, guys who take me out on elaborate first dates make me feel pressured and uncomfortable. Hurray for coffee and a run in the park!

Jeff, your post (and your previous posts) demonstrates that I'd be screening you out as one of guys who is obsessed with the golddigger thing and determined to "test" me. Which shows you are wrong for me. And apparently, I'm wrong for you. You'd be screening me out as a golddigger who just wants a free cup of coffee. See? the system works.

Women do not fully grasp just how expensive dating really is.

My bras cost what some people's car payments do.

I just bought cheap eye cream -- for $14.99 for .05 oz. That's basically what would fit on one teaspoon.

It's very expensive to be a girl and look good. A guy basically has the prep costs of a golden lab -- go under the hose, shake off. Some clothing costs, but not like girls'.

But this really isn't a tit for tat deal -- just responding to that approach above.

The first date shouldn't be for dinner. That's like going up to a stranger on the street and offering them money. You gift/treat people you like -- otherwise it's a bribe, or will come off that way, and women have contempt for men who try to bribe them for their affection.

A first date should be for a drink or two. If that's too big an investment for you, stay home and masturbate. Gregg is older than I am, and makes more money, and just can't stomach me paying for him, but before Gregg, I had a poor boyfriend, and I paid every other time, and tried to work it that we went to the more expensive restaurants when it was my turn.

I'm pleased to see the women commenting here seem to have the same attitude I do -- not looking for a free ride, but not willing to abide a fearful cheapskate either.

Also, people make a big mistake of having long first dates. Leave 'em wanting more. Go out for an hour or two and then go home and go out again if you like each other.

PS I've always found it cheapest to give away sex for free. And sometimes you go out with a guy you're attracted to and he does or says something on the date that really puts you off.

Gail - YES!!! Exactly on that last part!!!!

Also, women are hard-wired to look for "providers," even if they never intend to have you pay their way -- just as men are hard-wired to look for beautiful women.

Do guys who expect the asking a woman to pay for herself thing work go for ugly girls?

"maybe women when asking their female friends out for a dinner or a movie or a drink as friends not as a date, do expect to pay for that!?"

No, Jerry. If you have a friendship, it's probably dutch, unless there's a birthday, or some other special occasion, or you are asking someone to your home, etc. That's why I'd assume that the situation where the guy says, "we'll each buy our own movie ticket" is not a date.

That said, when a friend of a friend that I didn't particularly know had an extra concert ticket, and heard from our mutual friend that I liked the singer, she asked me to go, and wouldn't let me pay. She invited me -- she didn't offer to sell me a ticket (although she could have.) I reciprocated. I took her out to dinner.

Jerry, I'm not sure I understand your question, if it is a question. As for why I expect the man to pay for two or more dates - it's because that lets the man be a man and chase/pursue the woman. I'm not saying that the guy's got to spend $50 or $100 or whatever - ask me to a free exhibit at an art gallery, to a walk in the park and feed the ducks, whatever. Cost is in no way how I evaluate a good date - amount of effort is.

Jeff, I think you're smoking crack. I see what you're getting at, but $5,000 to date? How many dates are you going on, and where are you taking these women? I suppose it's possible if you live somewhere with a high cost of living, but ouch.

And lastly - why is it that men (so far it's just been men that I can see) are calling women who are more "traditional", if you will man haters and sluts? I assure you, that's not the case. Sure, the women out there who "professionally date" or whatever are users who are high on themselves (assuming that they ONLY accepted the date to get a free meal), but just because a woman expects the man to be a man and do some work doesn't make her a harpy.

And what happened, Pseudonym?

When she dumped me, she listed that as one of the reasons I was "unfixable". (Time has proven her wrong, as it does to us all.) Subsequently I erred in the opposite direction, letting my next date know I spent my last twenty on our dinner. (His last twenty? Not much reproductive fitness there!) Later, she who would become my wife figured that if I was willing to spend money on her maybe I was serious (which didn't stop her from insisting that we trade off paying for dates.) At that point in my life I had a post-college job and money wasn't a big deal to me any more, so it may have been a matter of information asymmetry.

Michael said: "And yes, Anne is a prostitute. Not one of those you find on a street corner, but a prostitute. Once she set a price on nothing but herself, she crossed the line from woman to object."

Honestly, I think you're just dense. Either that or you're one of those people who thinks American women are all gold-diggers these days blah blah blah.

Anne said: If you'll read carefully, Spork, I never said sex was out of the picture - just that I don't OWE you sex merely because you took me to dinner. In a perfect world, women wouldn't accept a date with someone they weren't attracted to (I do, by the way, abide by this rule). That means that if the date goes well AND the relationship progresses that I may very well have sex with you. My point, however, is that you buying my dinner does not seal me into a binding contract to have sex with you.

Anne, I think maybe you misunderstood my comment. I didn't say that you said "sex is out of the question", I said it was out of the picture - meaning, okay, the guy should not expect anything more than conversation to take place on a date that he pays for, nor should he have any expectation that he will see you beyond said date. So it comes down to he's paying for conversation with you for some period of time. I have yet to meet a woman (or man for that matter) who contributed so much more to the quality of our conversation than I did that I felt they deserved some sort of compensation for it.

The difference between paying a hooker $100 and taking a woman on a $100 date is this: with the hooker, all you want is sex, with the woman, you are interested in HER - in getting to know her, in potentially entering into a relationship with her. It is an investment, as opposed to a transaction.

Okay, but unlike the transaction with the hooker which only benefits the man, presumably, a relationship is beneficial to both the man and the woman equally (at least, in a perfect world). If both are benefitting equally, then please explain why the man has to make an initial investment and not the woman. Why does *he* need to take a financial risk, but she does not, for something that allegedly will benefit both equally?

Furthermore, I think that women of character and integrity would not / should not let a man take them out that they would never sleep with - that's called using someone, and it's wrong.

Then let me ask you this: If, at some point during the first date, you decide you're not attracted to the guy and there's no way you'll be sleeping with him, do you then offer to pay your own way at the end of the date? How about if it's the second date, would you offer to pay him back for that first date? If not, that seems quite hypocritical of you.

Yes, it was crazy, hence the lack of a second date. I don't mind a little bit of excess on a first date, and I do love good food to compliment good company. And moreover it is traditional for the male asker to pay for the female askee's meal, I rather approve of that tradition. A decent man ought to be generous in nature...to a point.

However, there still is the logical question from Anne's statements of why the penis is forced to ask the vagina out on two or more dates that the penis pays for.

Evolutionarily, from Margo Wilson and Martin Daly (and not sure whether this is the exact quote): "Eggs are expensive."

A guy can knock up 40 women in a week and walk away from all of them. Just wrote about this in a column, as a matter of fact, can't remember if this bit made it in. Anyway, a woman has one egg, and getting impregnated means nine months of fat, swollen-ankled hell, plus a kid to support. Harder back when there were no 7-11s on the local savanna. Women evolved to be choosier and to be courted by men; courtship being a way men show they are providers.

These days, even women who are very wealthy and powerful seek wealthier and more powerful men, generally speaking. We evolved this way, same as men evolved to seek young, beautiful, fertile women.

To tell men they "should" like old, scaly-faced, barrel-shaped women would be just silly. As a woman, a beautiful personality alone will get you a beautiful friendship with a guy who's out having sex with hot women. On the bright side, there are a lot of not-so-attractive women who could really bump themselves up a notch if they knew how. I've always wanted to take on a guy for six months and a girl for six months, who just needed a little training and remodeling.

I don't know where all these desperate women are that Jeff speaks of or even a few other posters. I've never been so desperate to eat dinner at a fancy place without paying that I'd go out with a man I'm not interested in just so that he'd pick up the bill. Maybe these men who have found women to be professional daters should look at what it is they are interested in. Do they know these women at all? Do they have any interest in getting to know them? Or is dinner a binding contract for sex in their eyes? I do sympathize with men because dating does get expensive which is why I've always offered to pay for things or cook dinner or do something to reciprocate. I've dated wealthy and poor and 99% of the men refused to allow me to pay on the first date or any date after. I was raised with brothers and have many male friends. It may sound sexist but in their view, the man pays. In fact, after my divorce, every man I knew lectured me on that and told me that any man who allowed me to pay was not worth another date. I cannot say I always agree with that, but it did seem to be the prevailing male opinion. Maybe its a cultural difference too because I come from a predominantly Italian area and maybe there are still fixed gender roles when it comes to money.

Man, I wouldn't even consider asking someone on a date and not paying. I guess that makes me old-fashioned or something, but I've never lacked for beautiful and charming female companionship. Maybe not whining about the bill has something to do with it.

All that "professional dater" stuff - man, wherever you are meeting those gals, you need to start looking somewhere else, (or maybe the problem is you and your penurious attitude in the first place.)

Spork: "If, at some point during the first date, you decide you're not attracted to the guy and there's no way you'll be sleeping with him, do you then offer to pay your own way at the end of the date?"

Actually, yes. If I know I'm not interested in the guy romantically, I do offer to pay my share. I'm signalling that I'm not interested in anything beyond friendship. And every guy I've spoken to about this issue says that he'd recognize that signal.

Gail,

Arguably, I would say that Anne was the person who made the monetary distinction between penises and vaginas. I just made that relationship clear and in a manner that all of us would be creeped out by it. The point being, why are we creeped out by my saying the penis pays for the vagina when we are apparently not supposed to be creeped out by Anne's statement that the man is expected to pay for at least the first two dates.

I am okay with Anne's saying the man should pay for the first two dates, but it seems equivalent to saying the penis pays for the vagina. If you think that leads to other issues in society you may not be happy about, than perhaps you might reconsider not being creeped out by Anne's statement.

And lastly - why is it that men (so far it's just been men that I can see) are calling women who are more "traditional", if you will man haters and sluts?

It's because chivalry ("tradition") has been de-emphasized by popular culture. That's how those men treat other men they disagree with; from their point of view, why should they treat women differently when they've been raised to believe that women and men are the same?

I just bought cheap eye cream -- for $14.99 for .05 oz. That's basically what would fit on one teaspoon.

It's very expensive to be a girl and look good. A guy basically has the prep costs of a golden lab -- go under the hose, shake off. Some clothing costs, but not like girls'. (Amy)

Doesn't work, Amy. Here's why. Guys have to look good, too. All those hours at the gym. We buy less clothing, but it's more expensive. Shaving costs aren't exactly cheap at $20 for a pack of razor blades, plus all the accessories and creams.

Also, you're just ignoring the a basic mathematical fact of dating. It's an exponential process. At least it's geometric with a common ratio of around 5, for me.

You don't see this because you don't have to do approaches. You don't see that most approaches and most first dates fail. When you take an accurate account, you'll see dating is quite expensive. If you buy women drinks, even approaching can be quite expensive!

Your single date costs approach doesn't' accurately model the costs of dating. This is a fact, not an opinion.

A first date should be for a drink or two. If that's too big an investment for you, stay home and masturbate. Gregg is older than I am, and makes more money, and just can't stomach me paying for him, but before Gregg, I had a poor boyfriend, and I paid every other time, and tried to work it that we went to the more expensive restaurants when it was my turn. (Amy)

So, then you agree with me? But you just want a first coffee or drink for free? I'll meet you halfway.

But wait. We're talking approaches here, not dates. If I buy a $10 drink ten times that's $100. Maybe one woman in ten will be adequate for a first date. That's a $100 acquisition cost for one date, at which you expect me to still pay.

No thanks. I get better and cheaper results. Admittedly, I discard lots of good prospects in the process. That's a good tradeoff for me and the fellow you mentioned.

Jeff, your post (and your previous posts) demonstrates that I'd be screening you out as one of guys who is obsessed with the golddigger thing and determined to "test" me. Which shows you are wrong for me. And apparently, I'm wrong for you. You'd be screening me out as a golddigger who just wants a free cup of coffee. See? the system works. (Gail)

It does work! Glad you see that.

I'm cool if you want a profligate man or a rich guy. Who am I to say? It's a free market with free choices. Go for it.

As for me, I'm neither profligate nor rich. You'd hate me, for sure. Under the fellow's system, we wouldn't waste each other's time. That's a good thing!

To answer Amy's response above by completing my own later response to Gail,

"If you think that leads to other issues in society you may not be happy about, than perhaps you might reconsider not being creeped out by Anne's statement."

Or alternatively, to ask yourself why you're being creeped out, and to consider why you are bothered by the ramifications.

I'd go further Gail. I'd always offer to pay my share. If he accepted I presumed he wasn't interested. If he declined and I was interested as well, I'd graciously accept. If I wasn't interested, I'd say something along the lines of "No, really, I'd like to pay for my own drink." If he insisted on buying after that I wouldn't make a scene or anything, but I think the signals were pretty clear.

Very interesting discussion! And it illustrates how complicated dating has become in this crazy modern world!

The other Robert's story floored me! I've never been in quite the same situation but perhaps it's because I set a few ground rules for myself long ago. For those interested, I outlined them here. (N.B. Amy, feel free to repost if you like!)

The whole point of going out for nothing more than a coffee or drink on the first date is to establish whether:
1. There's a mutual physical attraction.
2. There's a sympatico beyond the physical.

For I don't know about the rest of you but I've been out on too many dates where I knew within a matter of minutes that there was no future (short or long term). Admittedly this dilemma is more related to meeting people through the Internet than in real life!

"My own personal view is, if a woman doesn't like my company enough on its own as a reason to spend time with me, and she requires some extra compensation, then I won't date her."

This is the male version of women who say, "If a man doesn't like me at 400 pounds, then he doesn't have to date me."

Yeah ... good luck with that. You can wave your tiny fists in the air all you like - it just doesn't make a difference when no one is listening.

When she dumped me, she listed that as one of the reasons I was "unfixable."

If somebody needs "fixing" to make them a possibility for you, you need to leave.

Nobody's going to be 100 percent for you, but for somebody to be a workable partner for you, I think you basically have to respect and admire them. That's how I feel about Gregg, and, in fact, it's how I feel about anybody in my life I'm close to. My friends are people who impress me constantly.

And Jeff, sorry, but razor blades versus what it takes to look good (as a woman) are just a silly comparison.

Pseudonym said: "It's because chivalry ("tradition") has been de-emphasized by popular culture. That's how those men treat other men they disagree with; from their point of view, why should they treat women differently when they've been raised to believe that women and men are the same?"

Sadly, I think you're correct in this.

Spork, those are very good questions. To answer one, I agree with Gail (again) - absolutely if I felt that there was no chance of a relationship developing I would pay my share of the date. As for "back-paying" - no, but then it's never come up. I'm not sure how one would even broach the subject. But yes, the woman offering to pay her share (if she's a traditional-minded woman) is a CLEAR signal that she's decided for whatever reason that she isn't interested. Yes, it is a bit unfair that the man is taking on the financial risks, if you will. That's why, IMO, he should hedge his bets a bit and not spring for expensive restaurants and operas right off the bat.

COOP: "All that "professional dater" stuff - man, wherever you are meeting those gals, you need to start looking somewhere else, (or maybe the problem is you and your penurious attitude in the first place.)"

Absolutely! Personally, I've never met a "professional dater". But I do know one investment banker guy who likes to go to clubs and pick up 21 year old "models." After a date, he brought one home to his (very chi chi) apartment, and she offered to be his girlfriend for $30K a month. (He declined.)

Well, I suppose I could say, don't go for 21 year old models if you're 45 and rich unless you expect to get taken, but you know what, I won't say that. Go for it, I say, if that's what you want, and may you have a good day for it.

But there's an easy way to screen out whether she's a gold-digger or instead is just a lovely young lady who adores older men. A gold-digger would have declined my suggested "coffee and a walk in the park" date as unworthy of her time. See? The system works. When you pick a chick up based purely on the basis of her looks, then take her out for a $500 dinner, you're actually signalling, "I want your ass and am happy to pay for it."

If a woman takes you up on a cup of coffee, or a Saturday morning run followed by breakfast, odds are good you don't have a gold digger.

That's how those men treat other men they disagree with; from their point of view, why should they treat women differently when they've been raised to believe that women and men are the same? (Pseudonym)

This is true. But can we examine it further?

Woman: Treat me like a 21st century feminist at work, but treat me like an 19th century damsel everywhere else.

Man: Cool. you treat men equally at work, too. And you treat me like a 19th century gentleman outside of work. You obey and defer. I pay and protect.

Woman: No. I'll be a 21st century feminist at work and outside of work. But you treat me equally at work and like a 19th century damsel elsewhere.

Man: But that means you get equality when the money flows to you, and special treatment when the money flows away from you. That's a fool's game. It's exploitative.

Woman: What? Don't you think my company is worth paying for?

Man: WTF?!?

And Jeff, sorry, but razor blades versus what it takes to look good (as a woman) are just a silly comparison. (Amy)

No more silly than ignoring the ignoring the progressive costs of dating, Amy.

If a woman takes you up on a cup of coffee, or a Saturday morning run followed by breakfast, odds are good you don't have a gold digger. (Gail)

LOL That is completely untrue. How many women have you dated, Gail?

Jeff, I sympathize, truly. For the record, there are still women who are more traditional all the way around. Obey and defer is probably a provocative (ie. will provoke instant anger in some people) way to put it, but yes, I do obey and defer to my husband. I have my input, and certainly he defers to me in some instances, but yes, he is absolutely the head of the household and he has the final word on decisions that effect our household's status and prosperity. I'm sure some people think that's antiquated, but it works for us and for quite a lot of other people who still follow that model.

"How many women have you dated, Gail?"

None, Jeff. But I am one. And I know a lot of them. And I know a lot of men who date women. If you aren't being downright silly about who you choose to ask out, this system works. Why is it that my male friends (I have a lot of them, perhaps because I'm athletic) are not complaining about continually finding gold-diggers in their dating lives, and yet you are?

Take a look at what you are doing. The one guy I know who runs into gold-diggers ($30K per month, now that's some serious gold-digging), is (a) picking them up at dance clubs and bars, (b) picking women half his age based purely and totally on their looks, (c) taking those chiquitas out for lavish dinners on a first date, and (d) talking about his money, job, and car to impress them. That's a recipe for how to find a gold-digger. Add a $300 bottle of wine and stir.

My reasons? Hmm. If you like someone enough to be interested in getting to know them better, and choosing a time and venue to do so, you should pay. Someone unwilling to spring for even coffee and kolache is not interested enough in me for me to spend my time on them. They've already devalued me and my time. Thus, no relationship potential. If I asked a guy, I would expect to pay, and have.

I am all for alternating who pays, once a relationship is established. But a guy who can't shell out the first time-much like a guy who won't do the asking originally-just isn't enough into me.

Pirate Jo: "My own personal view is, if a woman doesn't like my company enough on its own as a reason to spend time with me, and she requires some extra compensation, then I won't date her."

This is the male version of women who say, "If a man doesn't like me at 400 pounds, then he doesn't have to date me."

Yeah ... good luck with that. You can wave your tiny fists in the air all you like - it just doesn't make a difference when no one is listening.

Except that I'd wager I get more action than a 400 pound woman. I've met plenty of women who have enjoyed my company on its own merit enough to want to continue spending time with me.

I actually discovered a long time ago that the more money I spent dating a woman, the more unlikely it was to turn into anything.

Spork said: "I actually discovered a long time ago that the more money I spent dating a woman, the more unlikely it was to turn into anything."

I don't think anyone's arguing with you about that. Gail's making very good sense in this discussion, and being much more eloquent than I.

Also - 100% agree with Momof4. Well said!

hmmm, we are sure simplifying a lot, but ultimately this is a question of subtlety. This guy in question put everything out there in b+w as if this has been a major problem in the past. This red-flags him to women as having a ton of baggage. Even if this helps him select out the pro-daters, it selects everyone else out too.

So he has a decision to make. Right/wrong/indifferent, the reactions of most femmes on the thread seems pretty indicative to me of how women feel about the question. Either you accept that and buy their company or you don't. If you can't afford them, you simply stay alone. You CAN have friends and such, though it isn't the same. They are not looking to you to be a provider, they just like hanging out with you.

IF a woman expects you to pay, you are filling the role of provider, and proving that you can do that. This is a simple exchange, evn though I know there are woman out there that will deny that it is called that. "Pay me for my companionship"? Yeah. What do you get when you add "Guy pays me for my companionship" and "guy has to be the one who asks me out"?

"You can't even get close to me unless you prove you can provide."

So... if you lay it out that way to the guy he can make his decsion if he can accept that. If he persists in his way of doing this, he may EVEN find somebody that will accept his demands, but that doesn't address his previous issues. But he should know and understand that it is unlikely. It's his selection, it's his decision.

I think that's the intellectual knowledge to help make decisions, but like reading a BOOK on how to dance, it doesn't help you to avoid stepping on your partner's foot.

This is the subtle thing. You can keep your knowledge closer to your vest. You can get to know people, and in the unwinding of that they will get to know you. Maybe they have been just as scared and hurt and euphoric and strong as you. If you throw up the __fill in the blank__ need not apply sign, most people will say "well he's certainly full of himself". Women do this sort of thing too. "If he doesn't ask, and pay, it isn't a date." Um, sure. But what percentage of your life are you going to spend on dates? Ever walked your dog with somebody, ever gone to an arts festival? If you want to have a partner and not just a provider, you may want to look deeper.

Anne, I'm flexible. I'll go the equality route or the traditional route. But I won't go traditional while the woman goes feminist. That's just dumb, and I'm not dumb. Although, lots of women here would dispute that. Heh.

As a man, it's a good bet, almost a sure bet, that any woman you meet will want it both ways. She'll want feminist equality in everything, and expect her man to be a 19th century gentleman. It's pervasive.

Heterosexual women don't date men, so they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. But, lesbian Nora Vincent convincingly disguised herself as a man, and dated heterosexual women. She found most of them were golddiggers. She found that men weren't being cheap, but prudent. Go through Amy's store and buy Vincent's book, Self Made Man: One Woman's Year Disguised as a Man.

I'm not making this stuff up.

I actually discovered a long time ago that the more money I spent dating a woman, the more unlikely it was to turn into anything.

That's not nearly as counter-intuitive as it first sounds.

Jeff's situation puzzles me, though. I mean, if you're spending $5k on first and second dates, I mean, that's like 20-30 women. If you're dating that many women and still not finding anything worthwhile, then I've gotta wonder if you're looking for the wrong thing.

I mean, if you're after sex and nothing more, then yeah, you're gonna spend a shitload. If sex is the end goal, prostitutes are cheaper than dating.

But if you are looking for a relationship, maybe the "spray and pray" method of hitting on random chicks is the Wrong Thing.

I was kind of puzzled at the number of attractive women who were using dating services like Match or eHarmony. I always assumed that attractive women have no trouble attracting suitors.

But a friend of mine made the observation that it's essentially economics at work - the market for suitable mates is larger and more self-selected at places like that than at a random gathering.

If you're looking for a mate, then perhaps you'd be better served giving one of those services your coin than shelling out for expensive dinners with a different girl every weekend.

I have no problem with the statement that "you buying dinner does not buy a romp in the bed."

However, and call this a little cynical if you wish, if you're going to cost the guy a few hundred on a date, give him his money's worth of your company. ;)

Interpret that as you will.

None, Jeff. But I am one. And I know a lot of them. And I know a lot of men who date women. If you aren't being downright silly about who you choose to ask out, this system works. Why is it that my male friends (I have a lot of them, perhaps because I'm athletic) are not complaining about continually finding gold-diggers in their dating lives, and yet you are? (Gail)

Um. Human diversity? Different opportunity costs? Different interests? Different circumstance? Different opinions?

How come all my woman friends freely admit there's lots of golddiggers, and you don't?

I take that back. It's a dumb question. Was your's?

Jeff - a little insight might help. Where are you located? You don't have to get specific, just the metro area would be sufficient.

Jeff's situation puzzles me, though. I mean, if you're spending $5k on first and second dates, I mean, that's like 20-30 women. If you're dating that many women and still not finding anything worthwhile, then I've gotta wonder if you're looking for the wrong thing. (brian)

20-30 women over six months is 4-5 women a month. that's not out of line. I was able to stride it. Other people might be different, I guess.

Really all I advocate is a look at the total, progressive costs to get to one serious relationship candidate. I also admit some people are more flexible, and will consider a larger number of people to be relationship material.

But 4-5 a month isn't a crazy number. Really, if you count first meetings as first dates, 10 a month isn't out of line.

"Yes, exactly. But then you're agreeing with the fellow, and me, even while saying he'll get only insecure women. Are you insecure? Doesn't seem so. You seem fair-minded, non-exploitative. If you have a nice figure, I'd like to meet you for coffee, or an orange drink."

I think this guy needs to redefine "dating" and put the dutch treat concept in a proper perspective. Go somewhere very cheap or free and see what the woman does about picking up her share of a miniscule tab. That does not mean stating up front that she will be buying her half of whatever prior to even a first meeting. Ideally you should have met a woman in a free social situation before taking her out on a "date" Ease into it. No need to define the relationship before you find out who and what the other person is. I have gotten along very well in life with most of my friends being men and have never assumed that they owed me anything when we were together in a social situation. I think too many people are getting hidebound by the formal rules of etiquitte that are a leftover from the white glove era of the 1950's. All the men I have ever met that I was interested in were at work, school or hobby situations where we were together because we already had something in common. I think the idea of meeting a life partner through random dating is ludicrous. I will have coffee with a man or eat dinner with him because I enjoy his company or because we are on our way to a mutually interesting activity together. (I have an all consuming hobby that is male dominated) and I have more men paying attention to me, and inviting me out than I can handle.
Admittedly I handled the male female thing much differently when I was quite a bit younger but that is because I was a different person then. I have a very close male friend who I believe has Asperger's and the sort of borderline rude things that he sometimes blurts out I no longer take personally. In so many ways he is a gem and a wonderful person, who would do almost anything for me. I do spend some time explaining to him what women might consider rude or offputting.
A direct approach by the guy (to a woman that he had no prior history with) and whose behavior started this topic could be one of those things that a reasonable woman would find offputting. It might indeed operate as you suggest to weed out the professional daters and gold diggers. I am just worried that the women that he did attract would be desperate enough to not be particularly desirable. Isabel

Brian, I live in Dallas, TX.

Jeff. "lesbian Nora Vincent convincingly disguised herself as a man, and dated heterosexual women. She found most of them were golddiggers. She found that men weren't being cheap, but prudent. Go through Amy's store and buy Vincent's book, Self Made Man: One Woman's Year Disguised as a Man."

Um. This doesn't prove a damn thing. She was asking these women out as an experiment, to prove a point -- not because she was seriously interested in a relationship with them. Don't you think that just might have skewed her sample just a tad? When you ask people out for shallow reasons, you get shallow people.

And what kind of discerning woman looking for a serious relationship is fooled (at least for long) by a woman dressed up in a man's suit? Maybe, just maybe, she didn't get second dates with such women because they sensed something was wrong -- that it was an experiment or that she was in disguise or what have you -- and were just a tad creeped out. Sorta like those women who wouldn't date that dude who killed all the women at the fitness club. If you are a smart person who is particular about whom you date, you pick up on signals that something just ain't right.

If a guy in told me stright out (in a non creepy/off puting way) that he wanted to go out with me, but we'd pay for ourselves, he would definitly have to prove his worth on our date because my opinion of him would be skeptical and lower than normal. I'd give it a shot though (if I found him attractive, that is).

If I payed for myself on a date I'd be relieved and guilt-free if I ended up not liking him. Whereas, if a guy spent money taking me out, but I ended up not liking him, I'd feel kinda bad.

On the other hand, if I were a guy and asked a girl I was lusting after out on a date AND paid- I'd be a little bit resentful if I didn't get anything out of the night. But if she paid for herself- I'd consider it a wash and continue on my merry way.

"How come all my woman friends freely admit there's lots of golddiggers, and you don't?"

Actually, I freely admit there are gold-diggers out there(and have admitted it in this thread -- see $30K per month example above).

The thing is, my male friends seem to be able to weed them out, with the exception of my investment banker acquaintance mentioned above. They've either got good instincts, or are doing something right in the screening process. Or else maybe they don't regard accepting a cup of coffee as "gold-digging". I suspect it is all of the above.

Jeff, I agree with you. There are a LOT of women that do expect that, and honestly, it makes me sad. I'll have to check out that book, although it will probably horrify me. Of course, I don't follow the femi-nazi cry of "Men and women are THE SAME!". Equal, sure. The same? No. That's probably a completely different discussion, though ;-)

Swiss, I'm not sure what you're qualifying as a date. An art festival would definitely qualify. Walking the dog - that's more hanging out, and while I wouldn't poo-poo that, it's something that, IMO, is more for after you get to know someone. Well, hmm. A walk in the park *would* be a date, and if the dog came with, sure. So, I'm not sure why you're having a disconnect. Guys - there's no magic threshold before an outing becomes a date. It doesn't have to cost a certain amount before it qualifies. If it only costs $5 but you put thought into it, it's a date. If it's free aside from gas to get there and you put thought into it, it's a date. It's not complicated, or at least it doesn't have to be.

And Robert - I don't think I've ever cost a guy $500 on a single date. The only thing that springs to mind is the week my husband took me to New Orleans for Mardi Gras, and that was the same weekend he proposed, so I'm pretty sure he was happy with the ROI he was getting for his dating dollars ;-)

Honestly, you guys are putting so much effort into being indignant and bitter over the cost of drinks that you're probably driving away all the women who would prove you wrong. I do think that the he pays/she pays is less of an issue for younger people, maybe because more people are just starting out and would never consider a $50.00 dinner.

I'm 24 and my boyfriend is 23. He is cheap as hell, and super shy, and guess what? He still managed to ask ME out the first time, and he paid for everything. Everything included tickets to a game, two hot dogs, and we split hot chocolate.

Now I probably provide 60% of his meals, and I buy him little gifts, and treat him to dinner out more often because I've usually asked. And I buy cute clothes and underwear while he buys 3 dollar shirts at Costco. So really I'm spending more money on him than he is on me. But you know what, I do not give a shit, because he picks me flowers and loves what I cook and fixes my bike and planted my garden and doesn't nag me when I'm late. And he always brings over beer. Seriously, I'm an awesome girlfriend but I would never have gone out with any of you whiny people.

If you are a smart person who is particular about whom you date, you pick up on signals that something just ain't right. (Gail)

Women are so hubristic. They have that spooky magic. They just know stuff. They don't have to supply evidence. How convenient.

Um. This doesn't prove a damn thing. She was asking these women out as an experiment, to prove a point -- not because she was seriously interested in a relationship with them. Don't you think that just might have skewed her sample just a tad? When you ask people out for shallow reasons, you get shallow people. (Gail)

None of that is true. I read the book; you haven't. But you know more about it than I. You just know stuff. 'Cause you're a "smart person."

"How come all my woman friends freely admit there's lots of golddiggers, and you don't?" (Jeff) I freely admit there are gold-diggers out there(and have admitted it in this thread -- see $30K per month example above). (Gail)

But you haven't admitted that there's a lot of golddiggers. It's a matter of degree. I advocate approaching dating as a disqualification process rather than a qualification process. In other words, I advocate avoiding Type II statistical errors and accepting Type I errors.

Since my reasoning relies on degree, the likelihood of meeting golddiggers, it's important to make this distinction. You aren't making it. That's bad. You're losing track.

The thing is, my male friends seem to be able to weed them out (Gail)

I weed them out, too. You're losing track again. We're disputing the method of weeding them out.

I'm willing to accept lots more false negative than false positives. Your friends may prefer to accept more false negatives than false positives. The dispute isn't over whether one or the other "works." They both achieve an aim. But only one achieves my aims. And my aim is legitimate.

Now that women out earn men, I also claim that the disqualification appraoch is better for most men.

First, the Miss Manners "you ask, you pay" rule is a good one.

If I suggest in the middle of the workday that we go across the street for coffee, you're buying your own. If I ask you to meet me later and we'll have coffee, I'm buying.

A guy asking a woman out and telling her up front she has to pay either 1) is cheap, 2) thinks waaay to highly of his own desirability, or 3) a frugal guy you'll be glad you married when you're 65 and Social Security is broke.

Unfortunately, one of the costs of being a straight man in today's society is encountering the "dating for dinner" or "dating so she'll have a date to the holiday parties" types. That's why lunch or coffee are becoming popular first dates and why dating as a social activity is dying.

Another saturday, another date.
She would be ready but shes always make them wait.
In the hallway, in anticipation,
He didnt know the night would end up in frustration.
He'd end up blowing all his wages for the week
All for a cuddle and a peck on the cheek.
- The Kinks

It's very expensive to be a girl and look good. A guy basically has the prep costs of a golden lab -- go under the hose, shake off. Some clothing costs, but not like girls'.

Really?

When's the last time you looked at an overweight schlub in a torn t-shirt and cargo shorts, with flip-flops on his feet, a Supercuts mop, and a duct-tape-covered 1973 Toyota Celica and thought to yourself, "I gotta get me summa that."

Even ruling out metrosexuals ('cause no one wants that), men do have fairly high prep and upkeep costs.

A good haircut can run $100 or more.

Our clothing costs are similar to women's at the same store and fashion level. Women do wear a wider variety of shoes.

Our laundry services / dry cleaning costs are usually a bit cheaper, but we take more items per trip (uniforms, pants to be pressed, shirts to be laundered, suits, etc.).

And men can't get away with wearing sweat pants and t-shirts to the office the way women can. When the dress codes says "shirt and tie, no denim" we don't have any choices. Women have the "pants or skirt and a dress top" vagueness that leaves anything from gym clothes to denim to a suit as acceptable.

Honestly, you guys are putting so much effort into being indignant and bitter over the cost of drinks that you're probably driving away all the women who would prove you wrong. (Sam)

Sigh. Most people have difficulty understanding progressive, exponential processes. But this is getting fucking ridiculous.

It's like sales, people. Your cost of sales is not measured by the marginal cost of one sales call, but by the total costs to deliver a contract - including lost sales. Jeeesh.

Well, I don't know a lot about Dallas specifically, but I'm gonna guess that since it's a city there's a certain "sugar-daddy" quotient going on.

But seriously, if you are looking for a relationship, and you're dating 4-5 different women a month - and still not finding suitable candidates - you're wasting time and money.

If all you're looking to do is get your rocks off, you can do that cheaper too.

Hell, I gave up dating after a far smaller number of bad dates than that.

"A good haircut can run $100 or more. "

And I thought I was getting slapped around at $50 plus tip. Yikes!

Conan the Grammarian:

A good haircut can run $100 or more.

Uh... yeah. I pay $17 including tip. I don't know what the hell you're doing to your hair that makes it worth that kind of money. Lemme guess, you wear hair spray and blow dry every morning too.

HIGH MAINTENANCE.

Dang. I love this site. But it's time crack. And the first hit always free. Heh. I gotta get back to work.

Amy, thanks for the site. Gail, thanks for the bout. Anne, thanks for for your understanding. Later, everyone.

The thing about guys paying is, it is a signal. If the guy picks up the tab, it's how you know you're on a date and not just hanging out.

He's put out a signal. Then, if I was interested, I would put out a signal, too, and get flirty and such. But not if I thought he just wanted to be friends... why would I throw myself at some guy who wasn't interested? It would be embarassing!

Paying is a signal. It says, "I want you, woman!!!"

I suppose if he sent tons of other signals... but that never happened. Guys who didn't pay generally didn't want to be more than friends or friends with benefits. It just didn't happen that way.

"But this really isn't a tit for tat deal -- just responding to that approach above."

A little off subject Amy, but what exactly is "tat" and where can I get some and turn it in for the other stuff?

If you are a smart person who is particular about whom you date, you pick up on signals that something just ain't right.

Tell that to Mary Jo Kopechne or Holly Maddux.

"It's like sales, people. Your cost of sales is not measured by the marginal cost of one sales call, but by the total costs to deliver a contract - including lost sales. Jeeesh."

::eye roll::

What if your just a shitty salesman?

Lemme guess, you wear hair spray and blow dry every morning too.

Nope. I don't even shampoo everyday. And I only pay $50 for my haircut. Unfortunately, I have that hair type and face type that makes me look like I was attacked by a weed whacker if I don't get at least a decent haircut.

No Jeff, I get it. Drinks for 4-5 women per month add up. I think 4-5 dates per month is too much, because you aren't finding that any of those women were worth the drink. (Right?) I think something is off with your selection process; I don't meet even two new people a month who I'd want to have a longer conversation with. Stop dating all the damn time, or admit you're just doing it to bitch about how greedy women are. Offer some woman a drink next time you really want to get to know her, and until then pay for sex when you want it. That's got to be better than what's happening now.

"I pay $17 including tip." - Brian

But, then, you're not dating.

"I gave up dating after a far smaller number of bad dates than that." - Brian

Conan -

If I was actively dating, and a $100 haircut was the price of admission, I'd skip the dating and get a hooker.

No way anyone is gonna convince me that a straight man's hair is worth that kind of money, time, or effort.

I consider my hair too long if it needs to be combed more than once a day. If it needs chemicals to keep it from getting unruly, it's gone.

More grooming tips, Brian!

$100 for a haircut? Wow! I guess I'm cheap as I can't imagine spending that (well except on my wedding day when I did -- but that wasn't a cut, it was a cut, color and up-do) I've actually had better luck away from snooty salons at the local Supercuts. A $16 haircut plus a $10 tip for 15 minutes of work -- everyone in the transaction walks away happy! And the next time I come in -- she's right there to give me exactly what I want again!

More thoughts: If I ask you out, I'm saying "I like you so far, and think you would like me. Come spend time with me and let me prove it to you". I am asking you to take a chance on me, so I pay. Otherwise, it's like you're saying "Come pay for the priviledge of getting to know me even though you may not have thought about me before". The person asking is naturally more invested at that time, so they shouldn't expect the other person to make the same financial investment that they are, right off the bat.

PLus, if you can't afford the cost of dating, you probably don't have the status in our society to be dating. Not something you want to advertise. You hate that women like money? Maybe we hate that men like looks. Sucks each way, but it's biology. Deal with it. Fat ugly women can lose weight and invest in their looks for better dating return, and broke guys can put some creativity in (art opening with free champagne and appetizers? Cheese and a $5 bottle of wine at the park?). A little effort is better that a lot of whiny about the unfair paying disparity.

My husband asked me to meet him for lunch one day, making it clear he'd pay. I couldn't, but told him I was free later that evening because I was interested in him. So we saw a movie. I offered, but he paid. And I never, ever lacked for dates.

I threw out the $100 haircut as an example that men who put some effort into their appearance (for dating or other reasons) do have some prep and upkeep costs.

Whatever you choose to do with your hair, shave it off or let it grow and weave it into a shirt, is up to you. How she reacts to it is up to your date or coffee partner or hooker.

Some guys can't do buzz cuts or the bald look or really short hair. Or have gotten old enough that the hair's a little thinner and a better cut from a more skilled cutter is needed to make it look fuller. For these guys, a decent haircut is going to cost a few bucks.

I'm with you on the Supercuts, they give you exactly what you want. Fancy hairdressers think they are artists and take off six inches when you said you want a couple-inch trim, because they think they know what you want better than you do.

"I think 4-5 dates per month is too much, because you aren't finding that any of those women were worth the drink. (Right?)"

I'm with you, Sam (and you and your boyfriend sound adorable, by the way). In between boyfriends, I've gone months without meeting a guy I want to go out on a date with. I'd rather hang with my friends or read a book. If I go out with you, I've seen something in particular I liked (besides looks) and want to see more. Maybe I'm too picky, I dunno. I'm not much of a gambler. But on the other hand, by and large I've got something nice to say about nearly everyone I've dated in the last ten years or so (i.e., since I got picky). The years before I got super picky are another story.

Four or five different women a month -- that does sounds like a lot to me. What do you the rest of you guys think?

Amen to Amy's point about the costs of looking good as a woman! Guys, PLEASE do not try to say that your maintenance/grooming costs come anywhere close. Obviously you have to correct for age and income, and there will of course be outliers, but as a rule women are going to spend more than men on their appearance.

Take high school prom as an example. Guys rent a tux for $150, maybe get a haircut. Girls buy a $200-500 dress that will only be worn once. They also need shoes, jewelry, and clutch, and almost all pay for professional hairstyling, manicure, pedicure, makeup, and tanning beds. The whole package ends up costing around $500-$1000.

Ok, not every day is prom. But I still consistently put a lot of time and money into my appearance. I won't count the expense of a gym membership or the time spent working on my body, because I expect guys to do that too. What I'm pretty sure guys don't spend money on, however, is pricey haircuts, highlights, lotions and skin creams, makeup, pedicures, tanning beds, waxing. I'm only in college, but I know these expenses increase exponentially as women age, with professional blowouts, expensive anti-aging products, cellulite wraps, even plastic surgery...and when was the last time you heard of a dude getting a facelift or lipo? And then in addition to the expenses of making my body look good, there's the things I put on my body: clothes, shoes, jackets, matching bras and undies, belts, jewelry, bags, sunglasses, and other accessories. Yeah, men wear clothes too, but women are supposed to have a larger variety of everything listed, and generally the costs are more expensive.

I'll especially make an effort if I'm going on a date, and I can almost guarantee that I'll spent more getting on prep for the date than the date itself will cost. I'm certainly not making a profit, and if expenses were my biggest consideration it'd certainly be cheaper to skip the date and go buy my own damn cup of coffee.

And I'm not saying that guys will run away screaming if I skip a pedicure or my bag doesn't match my shoes. But it's all part of the package of looking good, and that's what guys want, right? Guys evolved to be visual (nothing wrong with that!) and women evolved to seek providers. But guys, you can't have it both ways: pulling out a biological explanation for why men don't like fat chicks and wish women would put more effort into their appearance, but ignoring the biological reasons for why women might be turned off by a guy who refuses to pick up the tab on a first date. How about we compromise: cheapskates get the fat chicks, and everyone goes away happy?

Bald, once per month, 7 dollars.

I look best that way.

Spork:
Okay, but unlike the transaction with the hooker which only benefits the man, presumably, a relationship is beneficial to both the man and the woman equally (at least, in a perfect world). If both are benefitting equally, then please explain why the man has to make an initial investment and not the woman. Why does *he* need to take a financial risk, but she does not, for something that allegedly will benefit both equally?

Spork, you are trying to be logical, while
women in these circumstances are not.
If she likes you, it might be an emotional storm for her just to hang out with you.

I still say "thank you" when Dave whips out the debit card to pay for something when we're out.

And it's a joint account...

I have to say it's nice to be treated to things. I like that he works hard and that he can take care of me. It makes me feel safe, I can't lie about it.

So, treat it as going through a ritual, not an exercise in logic. Women,as a rule, are creatures of ritual.

"If I was actively dating, and a $100 haircut was the price of admission, I'd skip the dating and get a hooker.

No way anyone is gonna convince me that a straight man's hair is worth that kind of money, time, or effort.?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18157456/

Chang RE: your link:

You can't polish a turd.

I'm happy with the grooming women do for men, but a lot of the grooming women do is for themselves and for signaling to their competition and "friends" and probably does more to annoy men and signal them to stay away then to attract them.

For example, lipstick. I'm curious as to what a poll might show regarding men's preferences regarding women wearing lipstick. Yuck. A lot of women's makeup ends up making necking with Ronald McDonald seem attractive. Yes, thanks for letting me kiss greasy lips covered with insect dyes.

And while I'm griping, could you get that grooming done faster and not force us to wait for you 45 minutes? I'll willingly pay for that! I bet most guys would be.

Spork said: "Okay, but unlike the transaction with the hooker which only benefits the man, presumably, a relationship is beneficial to both the man and the woman equally (at least, in a perfect world)."

I almost forgot Spork said that. Obviously in a hooker situation, the man isn't the only one benefiting - hello ;-)

Shannon said: "I'll especially make an effort if I'm going on a date, and I can almost guarantee that I'll spent more getting on prep for the date than the date itself will cost. I'm certainly not making a profit, and if expenses were my biggest consideration it'd certainly be cheaper to skip the date and go buy my own damn cup of coffee."

Shannon, too funny :-)

Also, after giving it some thought, I have decided to rephrase something I said earlier on that got a lot of people raising eyebrows and yes, I could have stated it much more clearly. Rather than say that a man is paying for the pleasure of my company, let me say this: The ONLY thing that a man buying me dinner is guaranteed is the pleasure of my company. The only point I was trying to make with that statement is that there isn't some magic line where the woman OWES you sex because you spent ever-how-much on her. I think / hope that's worded a bit better and conveys what I mean.

so Shannon? We care about how you look w/out all that stuff. Half the time we spend with you is trying to figure out what you are covering up. So you can't really blame us for how many different pairs of shoes you feel you need to have to go with your outfits... but point is taken.

I'd be curious to find out how many guys eventually self select out of dating at all, because they know they can't afford it. I did.

Anne, I like that phrasing much better.

Chang -

All that money he spent on haircuts, and what did it get him? A roll in the hay with an hideous she-beast that resulted in a child he tried to deny away, and a lost shot at the Presidency.

So thank you for proving my point.

"All that money he spent on haircuts, and what did it get him? A roll in the hay with an hideous she-beast that resulted in a child he tried to deny away,"

Or as I call it, Saturday.

This thread is outta control. Love it.

And girls (ladies) remember this: We don't pay hookers for sex. We pay them to leave.

Honestly, you guys are putting so much effort into being indignant and bitter over the cost of drinks that you're probably driving away all the women who would prove you wrong.

I drink one glass of wine, maaaaaybe two, when I'm out. And although I'm no longer on the market, when I was, unless a guy was rolling in dough (ie, lives in mansion in Hollywood Hills, writes a TV show, etc.), I'd always order wine that was like a dollar more than the house wine. I'm very conscious of not being piggy, and I would say my female friends are, too.

These days, in my relationship, I'm always the one urging thriftiness. We're going to Gregg's HS reunion in Detroit, and he wanted to put us up at a hotel so I'd be more comfortable and in a better location (than at his late mom's tiny old house), but I insisted that we should be frugal, so we're staying at his mom's.

You really can suss out who the piggy gold diggers are, but women like me will never, ever date guys who are terrified of being taken and tight with a dollar.

And for those who are new here, I don't personally believe in marriage or living together. Gregg and I have been together for seven years, but we're basically people who really, really enjoy each other's company, and are very good for each other, and have lots of fun together, and keep seeing each other because of it.

Jerry -- "And while I'm griping, could you get that grooming done faster and not force us to wait for you 45 minutes? I'll willingly pay for that! I bet most guys would be."

Well, OK, but are you happy with the results?

I'll say up front that I wear very little makeup -- I don't like it, and luckily I have very good skin, dark eyelashes, and naturally red lips, so I get away with it. A lot of guys love that I'm not make-up-y, but I must say I've had a few who told me I should wear fire engine red lipstick and nailpolish if I want to look hot. Yeah, some guys did lipstick.

So I save time on the make-up front. But if I'm going to shave my legs and armpits, that takes a while - a lot more area than there is on the face. If you're grossed out by women with dead skin flaking off their feet, well, fixing that takes a while too. Ditto on the hands -- I don't have long painted nails, but men do notice decently filed, groomed, smooth hands -- or rather, they notice if they are not well-groomed. My hair is long and thick, and takes fifteen minutes to blow dry. That's just to blow-dry it. (I don't curl, straighten, hairspray, gel or do anything fancy to it. It just takes forever to dry.) I'm going to bother to iron my clothes, too, even though I freaking hate ironing with a passion. If you are genetically cursed with bushy eyebrows or a mustache (I'm not, but many are), well, dudes don't like unibrows and facial hair, and while it's easily fixed, plucking takes time.

And all that is to produce the "natural" look!

Sure, if I'm going out for a run, I push the hair back in a ponytail, slap on some sunscreen and go. But a date -- well, 45 minutes is pretty much what it takes to produce what most men would consider a well-groomed appearance for a date. You wouldn't much like it, I'm betting, if I showed up with hairy legs, my wet hair in a pony tail, a wrinkled dress, and feet that flake all over my sandals.

"My question is what kind of women is he going to attract with that kind of approach? The terminally insecure?"

I'll tell you what kind: Those who believe in equality, who don't want to be "bought", who believe in female empowerment, female financial independence, not leeching off of others, and not "hookering yourself out" to men. The kind who would raise children who have similar values and are independent, financially and mentally, and don't leech off others. Doesn't sound all bad to me. I've dated women like that, and they weren't "insecure" - I don't know how you make the leap from financial independence and equality and not "hookering yourself out", to "terminally insecure".

I do generally look for those qualities in women, and those are some of the main values I would prefer my children (male and female) to be raised with ... I don't insist on them in a relationship though, and depending on the woman's values and education and job, I'll also pay. But women who don't want to sell themselves like objects do exist, and I have dated some like that ... I don't see anything wrong with someone else making that a criterion for a relationship.

Note the man in question here didn't ask to be paid for --- just for equitable splitting of the bill. To think that's "wrong" would be incredibly hypocritical and reeks of expectation and inflated ego.

"Okay, but unlike the transaction with the hooker which only benefits the man"

Eh!? Really? Try that one again.

What the hell do I know about women's grooming...? That said,

There's the grooming I assume you do on a daily basis that shouldn't be counted here like shaving legs and pits and putting troll lotions on your troll feet to keep your troll flakes from overwhelming your troll boots.

And then there's grooming for the date itself at which point, brush, gargle, jeans, t-shirt, purse, keys, and let's go are massively attractive and I'll take the occasional troll foot flake wafting into my beer as whatever.

Feeie, you can polish a turd

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/30/nyregion/30dino-533.jpg

13 years old! That's cougariffic but possibly not something to be writing about.

Jerry said: "There's the grooming I assume you do on a daily basis that shouldn't be counted here like shaving legs and pits and putting troll lotions on your troll feet to keep your troll flakes from overwhelming your troll boots."

Omigod - too funny :-)

Lujlp. ewwwwww.

Jerry --

If you are not counting any of the things I listed (showering, shaving legs, drying hair, troll foot and hand care, ironing clothes), then I'm ready for the date in ten minutes. I do think many (maybe not all, but many) men underestimate how long it takes to become smooth and silky and hair-free -- they think it just occurs. They never stop to think about how their own feet and hands get scaly, or their own legs grow hair, etc. -- they just figure women are (or should be) born without those defects. Ditto, men generally like long hair, but never think about it taking longer to wash, dry and brush. You sound like you're OK with the troll feet, but I once had a boyfriend with the ugliest feet imaginable -- we're talking SERIOUS troll feet here -- remark on it when I was a week overdue for a pedicure! Ditto on the bikini wax!

But let's take that aside for a sec. I'm wondering who you're waiting 45 minutes for.

If it is just a random date, bitch should've been ready when you came to pick her up, unless you were early or something. It is very rude to keep you waiting, and you've got me in your corner. If it's a girlfriend, though, and she regularly takes 45 minutes on her make-up (no fair counting leg shaving and troll-foot care, if you consider that basic daily grooming), then you chose that high-maintenance chick! Next time, go for an easy breezy chick with make-up-free skin and simple hair and stay away from the one with shiny red lips and three shades of eye shadow!

The fact does remain, it's rude not to at least offer to pay your share.

This is a very enlightening thread. I'm so glad that I'm not dating right now. Who can afford wining and dining in these times anyway?

Well it was my ex, and you're right I did choose her, even after she repeatedly showed me how rude she was in that regard.

I am interested in this conversation in part because I can see her behavior rubbing off on my younger daughters, who I am trying to teach the virtue/attractions of "brush, gargle, and go."

Amy wrote:

My boyfriend happens to pay for me -- he's 13 years old and he just can't stomach my paying for him. But, we had sodas at the Farmer's Market after meeting at the Apple Computer store (he asked, he paid -- probably all of $3, total).

Amy, that $3 was probobly a lot for a 13 year old.. :)

"Okay, but unlike the transaction with the hooker which only benefits the man"

Eh!? Really? Try that one again.

Perhaps I could have worded it better. Both benefit from the transaction, but both receive different benefits. Whereas in the relationship scenario, both benefit in the same ways.

"The fact does remain, it's rude not to at least offer to pay your share."

NicoleK -- Rude according to whom? If it's a matter of pure manners, Miss Manners is 100% clear on this point -- who invites pays. If the woman invited the man on the date, yeah, she's rude to expect him to pay. She's my authority on what's rude. Who is yours?

And taking the etiquette quite aside, there is the signalling issue. Jeff is going to be happy that you offered to pay your share, but all of my male friends are going to take it as a sign that you don't regard them as a serious romantic prospect. I suppose you're taking a risk either way. If you don't offer, Jeff will be peeved. If you do offer, my guy friends will take it as a signal. I'm going with my guy friends here, at least on the first date. They're good eggs and good boyfriends/husbands.

Me, I actually would offer to go halves (indeed, I used to do so), if it weren't for the signalling issue. Things actually worked out better (i.e., I got asked out for more second dates) when I stopped acting like the liberated power lawyer on first dates. (I changed tactics years ago, after each and every one of my male friends said that they didn't like it when the woman offered to pay.) And the guys that asked me on second dates were generally better bets -- more considerate, romantic, and more interested in a serious relationship.

What can I say, that's my experience.

"I am interested in this conversation in part because I can see her behavior rubbing off on my younger daughters, who I am trying to teach the virtue/attractions of "brush, gargle, and go.""

My sister-in-law and I are trying to teach my young nieces that lesson. Neither of us are make-up-y, and they always want us to put on more make-up! (I let them put it on me, because they're so damn cute. You should see the result.) Dress-up is fun, but we don't want them growing up insecure and over made-up.

For what it's worth, my mom was always after me to wear more make-up when I was a teenager (still is, actually). She won't go to the mailbox without being fully made up and coiffed. Somehow I turned out to be the opposite way. I think it was pure rebellion, in large part.

You probably can help your daughters see the value in brush gargle and go if you date women who are that way. (Seeing as your high-maintenance ex is an ex and all.) That will help them absorb the lesson that natural is attractive.

Wow, I've missed an interesting thread today. It reminds me of a story one of my male friends told me. In his 20s, he was a starving young model in Milan, sent over there by an American agency. He shared an apt with other models. The only way he survived is that the female models would go out with rich older men, order way too much food, then bring the doggie bags back to the guys.

As far as I'm concerned, everybody gets what they want in that scenario - the rich guys wanted to be seen with hot young models on their arms, and the starving young models, male and female, needed to eat. It's commerce.

DavidJ, did you miss me saying that despite my boyfriend asking and paying for the first date, I now spend an equal amount, if not more, money on him? I take care of him, I like taking care of him, I do not leech off him.

Going on a date with a man who tells you that you'll be paying your way just means you're going on a date with a self-important jerk who's out to prove a point, not to get to know you.

"[Men] wouldn't much like it, I'm betting, if [women] showed up with hairy legs, ... wet hair in a pony tail, a wrinkled dress, and feet that flake all over [their] sandals.

Depends on how attractive the gal is. Farah Fawcett at 22 could show up like that and covered in mud to boot, and most straight guys would still be genuinely glad she showed up. But if Rosie O'Donnell showed up after five hours of primping, most straight guys would still not find her attractive.

"Depends on how attractive the gal is."

True, no doubt, but most women, by definition, hover around the average range, and it behooves them to look groomed.

Even if a woman is pretty, men generally find it respectful if she puts in some effort. Once I wanted to get in a quick run with a few of my friends before a date, and commented "it's ok if I show up for a date with wet hair, right? It's just a movie!" My guy friends in the group gave out a united howl and made me skip the run. "Not respectful!" they said. "He'll think you don't give a crap about the date!" I decided they were right. The guy might have been Jerry and found it charming. But I wasn't going to take that chance.

I'd ask, "Do you ask the same thing when you go out with guys, or just of with girls?" Seeing as he's expecting to be "taken advantage" of, he'd probably assume I was saying, he was gay.

Which I would not be saying.

I would be saying, he was not a man.

"The one guy I know who runs into gold-diggers ... is ... talking about his money, job, and car to impress them. That's a recipe for how to find a gold-digger."

I knew a guy like this once. He was actually quite wealthy at a young age, having inherited a job/business from his father and grandfather. He talked non-stop about his money and possessions, when he wasn't whining about all the women he dated being gold-diggers. I explained to him that a lot of his problem was in the way he was marketing himself. If he's going to wear his money/stuff like a big sticker on his forehead, he shouldn't be surprised if he's attracting women who are interested primarily in his money/stuff.

Put another way, what do you WANT women to like you for? Do you want a woman who appreciates you for all the interesting things you read? Then talk about what you've read lately. For your kindness? Then show kindness. Demonstrate the things you want women to value you for, and you will attract women who want those things.

As far as the guy I knew, I really don't think he had much going for him other than money.

A few thoughts:

I think it was Anne that wrote above, "But yes, the woman offering to pay her share (if she's a traditional-minded woman) is a CLEAR signal that she's decided for whatever reason that she isn't interested. " Let me put a caveat on that. In my experience, maybe about half of women will offer to pay their share on the first date. There's a couple of things going on here. First, she wants to demonstrate that she isn't a moocher. Which is very much appreciated, but I will politely decline that offer, because accepting it means moving the date into "friends" territory. (Only once that I can recall did I have a first date that was so supremely awful that I accepted her offer to make it dutch.) Declining the offer is my signal to her that I had a good time and that I'm still interested in her.

At this point, if she lets it drop, that's her signal to me that she's still interested in me. However, if she insists on paying her share, that's a clear signal that we're in friends territory. And yes, I've had it happen. So that's how that works.

As far as the investment: Well, the key here is that a first date should not be particularly expensive. Gail mentioned being creeped out on the idea of being taken on an expensive first date, which I can totally understand. It puts too much pressure on both parties: she feels like there is an implied quid pro quo. Meanwhile, he's conflicted: he feels like a masher if he hits on her, and a chump if he doesn't. Keep that first date inexpensive. That way, you don't have to worry about that $20 "investment". After all, it's not like we're buying Enron stock. It's just a date.

Which brings us to the progressive cost of dating, as Jeff mentions. There was a time, when I was young and foolish, when I took the shotgun approach to dating: If a woman was stationary for ten seconds, I'd ask her out. That didn't work well. I blew some money and a lot of time on women who really weren't that interested, but only accepted the date because they didn't know how to say no politely. After my (brief) first marriage, I became a lot more selective about who I asked out. I paid a lot more attention to whether or not a woman seemed to be interested in me. (I also paid a lot more attention to whether or not she appeared to be reasonably sane...) That was both encouraging and discouraging, because I had some great relationships but also had some long date-less spells. But at least I wasn't wasting my time and effort on dates that were doomed from the start.

Is there such a thing as a professional dater? Yeah, I've run into a few. The thing is, "professional dater" is a synonym for "barfly in training". Some women date for fun; some for compaionship, and some for romance, but the "professional dater" dates to get drunk on someone else's tab. I learned early on to pay attention to how much my date was drinking. If she was knocking them back as fast as the waiter could bring them, or if she was bugging me to buy here more drinks, or otherwise fixated on obtaining alcohol, I knew not to ask her out again.

well said, Dave!

Dave, that's very well said. I will say that part of my outlook comes from being raised by a man who will be turning 88 this year (I'm in my mid-30's), and in his generation it was considered rude for the woman to give any outward sign that she noticed he was paying the bill. Thankfully, I'm done dating (and no desire to go back to it) but I do like the system you and, I think it was Gail, outlined.

When I posted a personals ad I had a slew of dates. About half the time on these first dates I would sit down at the table with the guy and then say, "I'd like to ask a small favor of you on our first date." The guy would of course agree, slightly apprehensively but nonetheless eager to oblige. "I'd like it if you would allow me to pay for our dinner this evening. I know I don't have to, but just this once, humor me. I've had plenty of men take me out and I don't think it's fair to expect it all the time. I'll tell you what - if we go out a second time, I'll let you pay."

It took the sting out of the otherwise awkward moment and kept me from feeling obligated. But I learned this lesson the hard way.

Keep that first date inexpensive. That way, you don't have to worry about that $20 "investment". After all, it's not like we're buying Enron stock. It's just a date.

It should be no big deal, whatever money you're spending, or you're spending way too much on the date.

I'm going to join the chorus and say that no, I wouldn't date a man who says that. It tells me that a) he has bad judgment because he's obviously been worked over by far too many shitty women if he's developed that attitude and b) that he must not like me that much if the cost of a cup of coffee is too much to risk to go out with me. I don't actually enjoy going to fancy restaurants on a first date. Unless that's your general lifestyle, it's not going to help me get to know you. You won't be buying me expensive dinners and bringing me flowers forever, and it's your real life that I'm actually interested in, so let me see some of that. Yes, I expect a man to spring for the first date, but if he chooses not to, so what? There are plenty of men who aren't damaged/cheap/paranoid/broke who will. I think that's what men should be looking for: a woman you will gladly buy coffee or drinks or dinner to have a chance at. My attitude is that if you're not totally excited to see me, you shouldn't bother. Can't you tell when you meet her if she's something special?and if she is, don't you think other men know this?
Maybe the problem is not having sufficient judgment to sniff out the bad ones before they get their claws in. Let her choose the restaurant, and see what she says. This should tell you something. Or suggest a museum or an art walk or a baseball game. Something you like to do as well that will tell her about you, and tell you whether she'd fit into your life. If she wants to get to know you, this will be ok with her. Activity dates are much more fun and creative anyway. Date women who can have fun doing whatever and not those that need to be entertained, because we all know you won't be squiring her around forever, and you won't be setting yourself up for a relationship with a disappointed woman. How many women bitch about the "romance" being gone because their spouse set themselves up as a romantic guy when really, he'd rather have a woman who appreciates his effort when he washes her car, or lets her have the remote? Same goes for women - if you don't like to jog, don't go on a jogging date. If you don't like sports, don't pretend so he'll like you. If you won't be happy sitting on his couch drinking beer with his friends, don't act like you will. There's a difference between putting your best self forward and putting forward someone else altogether.
/rant

I'm thinking that from now on I'm going to let Gail speak for me. So far I agree with her on everything. And where is Crid for this discussion?

As others have pointed out, it's really pretty simple - if you invite someone to something, you pay. It's a nice gesture for the other person to offer to split the check (I often do), but the one who makes the plans is the one responsible for financing them as well. That said, taking a first date to anything expensive seems pretty silly.

But seriously, why are so many people being hard on women for being "golddiggers"? Do you also find it repugnant for men to be "beautydiggers"?

Just to clarify, I personally find people who only care about money or looks to be boring, annoying, and sometimes even repugnant. It just seems like a lot of the people on this forum are quick to justify every little biological impulse of the male gender as "evolutionarily approved!" - all the while sharply criticizing similar behavior in women. Kind of a silly double standard.

"But seriously, why are so many people being hard on women for being "golddiggers"? Do you also find it repugnant for men to be "beautydiggers"?"

Well said, CB. I'm willing to bet that most of the men who complain about golddiggers are only dating women who have the commodity of beauty, and wouldn't date anyone less than their standard of beauty, yet complain when they are chosen as a provider. These women know they have something to barter if that's they're goal. "I'm beautiful; you're rich or at least better-off (or I hope you are), so let's barter."

And the truth is that this trade is as old as time itself. Some of us women, who have the means to barter, have realized that it's a raw deal. Better to have a quality man - a decent, ethical, loving individual rather than someone who can easily afford a fancy meal.

Yet, no woman wants a cheapskate either. My boyfriend makes less than me, but he always offers to pay. Probably 1 out of 3 times, I insist on paying and grab the check. And I know he appreciates it, but he also appreciates being able to be the man in the relationship, and it turns me on that he is the man. Neither of us would want it another way.

Likewise, there are lots of feminine things that we women do that we don't technically "have" to do, but we know that you men like that we are feminine. If we all start being totally "equal", and behaving the same way, romance is dead.

the difference CB is if it's about you as a person or not. You can be beautiful in what ever way you are, and that is YOU. My money isn't me and it is suprisingly easy to remove it from me... so the golddigger never really needs to be interested in me at all.

Swiss, that would be great if it were true, but most women aren't prized for their inner beauty...especially by men who have money and therefore know they can trade it for something hot, young, and sexy. Women go to incredible extremes and spend thousands of dollars to insure that we are beautiful enough to be cared for...to be loved. I know more women who truly, deeply love their man for being a great provider than I know men who are infatuated with their plain woman's "good heart."

Actually, Swiss, most of the time your money IS you - you're the one who earned/managed/spent it, so it's often even MORE of a reflection of your character, abilities, and priorities than someone's physical appearance.

Of course, sometimes good, hard-working people have bad luck and are poor, and sometimes jerks are rich. And some people are thin and gorgeous and never work out, while some people exercise faithfully and still never get "hot." So I don't mean any of this as any kind of universal statement on the relationship between money/beauty and character, but rather am trying to say that caring about money is no more shallow than caring about beauty.

I don't think either one is especially shallow, CB. And I was speaking of whole people not just inner or outer beauty, LS. Presumably somebody would be interested in you as a person to start with, but insofar as money, they don't have to be, esp if you already have it.

The reason neither is particularly shallow is that we are wired for it. This is only a baseline. The difference is that at one time the role as provider was not seperable from the man, just as beauty is not seperable from the woman. Modernity has brought us to a point where that separation is possible and THAT has really changed dynamic. If a woman can take a guy's money and move on to the next, and if a guy can be the next one, then the turnover increases, seems to me. Dunno that it's important, just an observation.

CB, you may be on to something that money is us in some ways... maybe denial ain't just a river in egypt. But that's why some of us no longer bother. It sucks to see a woman's eyes fall, when she finds out that you are supporting an ex. She does the quick math, and that is that.

"I'm thinking that from now on I'm going to let Gail speak for me. So far I agree with her on everything."

Kristen, thank you so much! I know I've pissed off Crid and a couple of others (and don't get me wrong, that's a lot of fun), but it is really nice to bond with people, too.

On the "who invites pays" thing: I just came back from a lovely dinner with a couple I know. both of whom are good friends. (I'm on eastern time, by the way.) I haven't seen them in a while -- they both work and they have two small kids, so it's very hard to schedule anything. (That's maybe the one thing the crappy economy has been good for -- more down time.)

Anyway, they absolutely would not let me pay for anything, on the theory that "no, we invited you out." Completely unnecessary, since we're old friends, but delightful nonetheless. Now, of course, I want to do something nice for them. It is so much more pleasant when it works that way instead of everyone always niggling over the check.

"It sucks to see a woman's eyes fall, when she finds out that you are supporting an ex. She does the quick math, and that is that."

Then date women who don't need your support! I really believe the key to successful dating is having a brutally honest assessment of who you are, what you have to offer, and who your "market" is. In the intial measuring-up stages, it's just about advertising. You've got to know your target audience.

Swiss, there are a lot of successful, financially-stable women who are looking for a good man. But a guy isn't going to find them if he's looking to "rescue" a woman. And some men are drawn to that victim type, the one desperately needing the provider. Those women are the ones who'll be disappointed, but a stronger, more independent woman won't be.

s'ok LS, I've never dated a woman who needed my support, incl. my ex- but as with the question of the equation of beauty, and as CB pointed to, the money DOES matter, even to one who doesn't need it. I know many strong independant women, and they are all friends...

Universalities aside, sure there are prolly some out there that it doesn't really matter to. But this is where Jeff's cruel numbers REALLY hold well, the burn rate of finding one is quite high.

Which brings us back to the Q? in the first place. What would posses a guy to be so astonishingly blunt to say; "I'll take you out but you gotta pay your own way."

> but it is really nice to bond
> with people, too.

She means the way children bond with their mothers and fathers! Gail's all about righteous intimacy!
__________

I know Amy does this for a living, and supports her lifestyle this way, but I'm impressed at the interest this topic generated. 168 comments in about 20 hours (all of them heartfelt), presumably all from passersby (and not links). Props to Big Red.

If you actually started a blog called "The Competence of Attachment", no one would read it.

I take back all the bad things I said about Amy Alkon, She sounds like a great date, based on her first date with her steady. True, Alkon lives in a rent-controlled apartment, and belongs to a non-profit health plan that rations care (and enforces binding arbitration), and calls herself a libertarian, but what the hey. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

After approximately two weeks of extremely casual analysis, I've concluded that "i-holier-than-thou" is an exceedingly bitter, malformed soul.

I might be wrong! Let's hope for evidence.

Criddles! I've missed you, lovebug.

"After approximately two weeks of extremely casual analysis, I've concluded that "i-holier-than-thou" is an exceedingly bitter, malformed soul."

Holy crap! I totally 100% agree with Crid on something!

Without me, you're nothing.

This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

No... no.

"When's the last time you looked at an overweight schlub in a torn t-shirt and cargo shorts, with flip-flops on his feet, a Supercuts mop, and a duct-tape-covered 1973 Toyota Celica and thought to yourself, "I gotta get me summa that."

And those are the men who 1) think that they deserve a supermodel by virtue of their being; 2) scream with outrage if you suggest that they either get real and date within their own league or lay off the doritos, hit the gym, get a decent haircut and nice clothes and go back to school to get a better job; and 3) whine on the internet about how all women are bitches who don't appreciate a 'nice guy' like him.

"Which brings us back to the Q? in the first place. What would posses a guy to be so astonishingly blunt to say; "I'll take you out but you gotta pay your own way."

I don't know, but it obviously doesn't work. Kinda like a woman who would say, "I'll let you take me out, but I won't kiss you or hold your hand until at least date four." Rightly or wrongly, you'd assume she's a prude, and you'd be destined to a miserable, sexless relationship, and, rightly or wrongly, we'd assume the guy would be monitoring our every purchase and make us cut coupons forever. It's an image thing.

And it's not that a woman technically needs support; it's that she emotionally needs it. A lot of women have good jobs, but they're just waiting to settle down and quit. Maybe your ex was like that. Sure, she was independent at first, but that wasn't her ultimate goal. You have to be able to assess someone who really loves being independent and self-supporting from someone who doesn't. I know it's hard - it's subtle - but there are women out there, like me, who care more about quality of character than status.

I am late to the game here.

I think I might follow this guy's lead.

About 4 years ago I noticed how much I was spending and I took the idea of the Meet & Greet coffee date to heart. About a year ago I read a rant on another blog and it got me thinking. I realized that in the 3 previous years or so I had asked for a 2nd (1st real date) about 80% of the time and not once had I been turned down. I probably asked for a 3rd date in probably 2/3 the cases with half being accepted. I probably asked about 2/3 of those for a fourth date and only 2 accepted. I realized in all the dating in this time the direct cost that the women have paid was $30. All from the 2 after the 3rd date. $10 of that was parking at the museum where we met for date 4 - I paid for admission and my own parking. $20 was on date 5 or 6 with the other girl and that was for tickets to a show - it was a dinner show and I was expected to buy dinner & drinks (there was actually a min. tab). The reasons I got seemed silly - she could not see dating someone that went to the high school that I did (she was 30) - or where things she knew earlier on. It certainly made me feel like I was getting used by women for dinner and/or entertainment. All of them seemed to be interested in me. I couldn't find a pattern such as maybe there was something they were finding out and just giving any reason to get out of there.

So I stopped dating for about 6 months. I ran into this girl a couple of times and she seemed really great. We met for coffee - at the counter she tells me she has fancy drink that is kinda expensive and asks if I mind. Not at all. She orders her drink - about $5 - and then orders a sandwich ($8) and steps to the side for me to order and pay. She really seemed to like me and I found her interesting but that just left a bad taste in my mouth.

The othe guys I have talked speak of similar results though they tend to end in longer term dating which is not so bad cost wise.

I was just starting to think about dating again...maybe I shouldn't.

In my view, the theory of what this guy (and Jeff) wants to achieve, is to date a woman without paying a heavy $$ for it because, despite the protestations of the various ladies here on this blog, there are in fact plenty of women that see nothing wrong with accepting a dinner date from a guy they have no intention of becoming romantically involved with.

But this approach is all wrong!

Your first date should NEVER be an expensive dinner! That sends the subtle cue that you are simply trying to buy her sex with your money flaunting...and even if she doesn't consciously think it, a woman that senses this as your motivation will take you for all you've got and leave you high and dry...afterall, who do you think she is? Some hooker that can be bought for an expensive dinner?

No, a first date should be an inexpensive activity.

Don't buy that expensive dinner until AFTER you've had sex.

Go hiking. Take a picnic lunch. Go fishing. Play tennis. Whatever hobby you enjoy...find something enjoyable that doesn't cost a lot (or if it is an expensive hobby, like charter boat fishing...at least it's something you'd pay for anyways whether she was their or not), and get to know the person and determine if they are indeed WORTH the expense of an extravagant dinner!

Sorry for getting so fired up but it is one of the few subjects that really gets me going.

I don't think I project an air of money. My clothes are just those you might get Macy's or J.C. Penny's. I don't brag about my possesions or anything - I don't really have all that much to brag about.

Maybe I do give the impression I have money though. I met with a dating coach years ago and she said what I was wearing that date showed money. This is kind how the conversion went;
coach: "Those sunglasses must be $300!"
me: "I got them at the sporting goods store for $15"
coach: "Well, that t-shirt - that faux aging shows it is designer."
me: "Regular t-shirt that I have had for a few years. Now that you point it out it is getting a bit worn out."

Some of these posts have got me chewing on something...

When I think about John Wayne in "The Quiet Man", or William Holden in "Network", or Marlon Brando (in just about anything in his younger days) - I can't see any of them bitching about offering to pay for a woman's drink. Each character had their human flaws, but they were what I would perceive as *real men*.

Ya, it is the movies, and maybe all of those guys were old fashioned, and quixotically chivalrous at times, or oozing testosterone from every pore available to them....but the thing is, (and I may have muddled the point I am about to make):

I don't like it when guys bitch like a bunch of pussies. It’s a complete turn off.

If he is doing pie charts and ratios or tree graphs (???), he probably isn’t that good in bed. Bottom line. That’s probably what I am gonna be thinking to myself.

Don't mean to be blunt, rude or crass.. but there's just no getting around what I would be thinking intuitively. He's a wuss.

heh, last time I checked feebie, throwing a woman over your shoulder landed you in jail, but back then he expected his dinner on the table at 5pm... also, It's not like any of these guys are going to tell you there's a value proposition involved.

ps. to LS, the ultimate goal didn't include me.

>> heh, last time I checked feebie, throwing a woman over your shoulder landed you in jail

I guess that's all a matter of preference, but hey, whatever works! :)

I think to night showed the problem for me. I met up with a buddy after his baseball game at local happening place. When I got there, there was about 5 couples, 20 civilian guys, 35 army guys (guessing by the haircuts and groupings) and 2 girls and 1 skanky drug addict (girl). While we were there a couple more couples came in and another group of civilian guys as we were leaving. Those 2 girls could easily move on if a guy was not giving them what they want - and it appeared they were working these two guys for drinks but that might have only been in my mind.

That generally seems like the theme of this area...way way way more single guys then gals once you get above college age. Surely not as bad as that place, but still bad.

Heh, throwing a woman over your shoulder only gets you in jail if she doesn't like it.

To be frank, my rule is never to date a girl that doesn't.

Its FUN to be a guy, and though I've never been a girl...they seem to like being girls, I'd wager that is fun too.

I say enjoy our respective pleasures, the fun of carrying the pretty happy wench over one shoulder, and the amusement of being carried.

Just at a guess, I'd say those are pleasures our lady of advice is familiar with.

Former banker, where ARE you? I need to send my single friends there.

Feebie, geeks and nerds are totally good in bed! Better than jocks.

Gail, the standard protocal I'd follow was this:

Waiter sets down check.
I reach for my bag.
If he's interested, he says, "Don't be silly, I'll pay"
Me, if I'm interested: Are you sure?
Him: (Some wisecrack about not being sure) or "Of course"

If he's not interested, he doesn't stop me when I move for my purse.

If I'm not interested, I say "I couldn't possibly' and then pay for my own.

That's how it worked. But I always reached in case it wasn't a date or for some reason he was anti-paying for feminist reasons or whatever. It's rude not to.

Miss Manners also thinks the girl should pay if she asks the guy out, but I'm not sure most guys would go for that.

Gail, as my grandmother would've said, "you're a pretty smart cookie!" And Crid, not only are you back, but you're making sense. I'm loving it!

I did just what NicoleK did. I always reached for my purse. Only one time did I pay, and that was when a guy I met after he went kayaking claimed he'd accidentally left his wallet in his other pants, which I believe was true, as he seemed quite embarrassed to have me pay.

Not sure it's the best way to guage interest though, as I found guys who weren't interested still paid, and I still offered, even when I wasn't interested.

Formerbanker, dating is just a numbers game, and I'm not sure you can do a cost/benefit analysis on it like that. Would you do it for fishing? How much would you spend for bait, for the boat, for gasoline to run the boat, the fruitless hours waiting for a bite? I know guys who spend far more money on fishing without complaint. It's all worth it when you haul in the big catch!

The fact you got quite a number of second dates says to me the women were interested. If they dropped off on the third or fourth dates, it could be just bad luck, or there may have been something they noticed about you that wasn't appealing. And, no, most of us won't tell you directly (I did once, and it was a disaster). So, polite women will make up an excuse....however, blaming it on your high school was a very bad one.

1. It just seems rude to ask a girl out and then not pay.

2. Women dress up and put on makeup mostly for other women. It really doesn't take much to look attractive. Women in other countries manage to do much better on far stricter budgets.

3. The reason why Men are paying for the Woman's time is supply and demand. Yes guys, you really aren't worth paying for a date.

Paying shows a willingness to make an investment in the relationship. Often, we still get dumped after men sleep with us, when they're main goal turns out to be sex. The only way we can weed out the guys that are completely casual is to have you show some type of investment.

To me, a guy who is going to gripe about paying for a reasonable meal is not indicating that he would stick by me through hard times. It's saying, "I only care about myself, and my needs." Whereas a guy who invites me to dinner and pays is saying, "I like you enough to make a real investment in getting to know you."

NicholeK - Where did I say jocks?

"Formerbanker, dating is just a numbers game, and I'm not sure you can do a cost/benefit analysis on it like that. Would you do it for fishing? How much would you spend for bait, for the boat, for gasoline to run the boat, the fruitless hours waiting for a bite? "

Interesting analogy! That thought occurred to me too... if you're going to date around, you need to think of it as a hobby. Decide how much you want to spend on it (both money and time), and from that, you work out how often you are going to partake in that hobby. There's one other similarity to a hobby... if it stops being fun, stop doing it. Do something else instead.

I have never been asked up front to pay for my half of a date; though I have always offered to split the tab when the check came. Some accepted, some treated, and whether or not I saw them again depended solely on whether or not I felt any chemistry there--not on whether or not they picked up the entire check.

I would never accept a date from anyone I felt absolutely no interest in, with the goal being a free meal.

However, if after a few dates the person I was with insisted on treating our dates as an opportunity to showcase his accounting skills it would kill my interest fast when they whipped out a calculator and tabulated our bill down to the precise penny, including tip, every single time. I tended to be generous with my dates (not beyond my means though) and knew I probably wouldn't be real happy with someone who kept track of every penny he spent on me as though I were going to be claimed as a tax deduction, especially since I don't do the same.

Then again, I tend(ed) to be a real crank about things, including not asking men out on dates, not calling them (until after we've at least been out once), and delaying sex until I felt like this was someone I was really comfortable about being serious with.

I consider paying for the first date to be like an audition for a play. A man who is interested in dating you wants to show you that he is right for the part. Likewise, a woman wants this and to make sure that the man is someone who will be willing to put in the effort necessary for a successful relationship/production. (Naturally, men want that too, but I think women usually make it more of an initial consideration.)

If you think the best way to audition is to walk onto the stage and before you even begin tell the director that you don't really care about getting the part, but if they'd like to cast you you'd be fine with showing up for rehearsals, I don't think you'll be getting a callback.

I wrote earlier:
"Apparently the dude needs to be dating Asperger chicks! :D"

Feeble replied:
"heeeyyyyy. be nice. ;)"

Whaaaat? I was being nice-- I'm an Asperger chick, and this is how I know at least one of us wouldn't be put off by being asked to pay our way! :D

Melissa -

ahhhkay!!! cute. (i was misdiagnosed with it a few years ago). I wouldn't date the guy! So, maybe that makes sense.

:D

Sarah: ...whether or not I saw them again depended solely on whether or not I felt any chemistry there--not on whether or not they picked up the entire check.

Wow! What an amazing concept! Deciding to see someone based on how you feel about them as a person and not what they do or don't buy for you! That's crazy enough that it just might work!

If a man told me that before the actual date, there would be no date. Period.

I refuse to believe chivalry is dead. If you ask me out, you pay. I am not picky. We can go on a free date. Ask me on a hike or say "Let's pack lunches and meet at the park for a picinic." Personally, I don't feel comfortable going on a "fancy" date with someone I barely know. I hate feeling as if a man is trying to buy me.

Plus, who actually says somthing like that before the date happens? Money is just about the least romantic thing to talk about. Women should be worried about what they'll wear and if he'll like her perfume, not saving up for her meal. I would be crushed if a guy I had been hoping would ask me out said this to me. What if I was low on funds that week? What if I just plain didn't have any money to spend on dinner out?

Luckily, I met my current boyfriend online, so we had a chance to chat about what a first date should be beforehand and we already felt comfortable enough with each other to be honest about it. We met at a dive bar and had appetizers while we watched baseball. He paid the food bill. I didn't even bother playing the old "reach for the purse" game. Since we were having such a good time, I ordered us another round of drinks after the meal and we alternated rounds until....well, until we closed the bar on a work night. :)

Women cannot stand to be made to feel like gold diggers. We all suffer for what those hard core femenists have pumped into people's brains...though, I must say: men seem a bit selective on what parts of the femenist movement they want to stand behind. You want to pay? Go ahead! You want respect? Whoa...now you're pushing it!

As for all these guys spending hundreds of dollars on first and second dates...how is that our problem? Let's be honest, here....you were hoping to impress her pants off with you bank account and it didn't work so your resort to the old "gold digger" routine. There are few things that piss me off more than men who hide sub-par personalities behind their wallets then attack the woman when she's not impressed.

Of course, there are extremes and exceptions to every rule, but I have told MANY of my guy friends that you catch what you bait for. If you're throwing your wallet out as bait, you're going to attract women who like men with money. If you throw out a winning smile and creative date ideas, you'll attract women who value the person, not the money...and she probably won't even notice how little money you spent.

If dating is too damn expensive and you're not creative enough to come up with an inexpensive way to get to know someone you can always stay home and jerk off or call a hooker.

Now that I think about it, online dating may be the way to go for some of you guys. Then you can at least get a feeling as to whether the chemistry if there without having to shell out a bunch of money on failed first dates. Honestly, when my BF and I finally met in person, I was already in love with him and he felt the same way. By then, the money didn't matter, we just wanted to be around each other. THAT is what dating is supposed to be about.

Wow...that was long and random. Sorry, I go a wee bit scatter-brained by this time of day.

Spork: Wow! What an amazing concept! Deciding to see someone based on how you feel about them as a person and not what they do or don't buy for you! That's crazy enough that it just might work!

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or just really enthusiastic but I know plenty of women who will claim that they offer to pay, just to see if the guy will pick up the tab or not, and if he doesn't, they don't go out with him again.

Sarah:I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or just really enthusiastic but I know plenty of women who will claim that they offer to pay, just to see if the guy will pick up the tab or not, and if he doesn't, they don't go out with him again.

It was sarcasm in the sense that I don't think your view is at all crazy or "out there". It was also enthusiastic because it's nice to see a woman with such a simple and rational approach to this, unlike many of the other women commenters here.

I am in the greater Seattle area - more to the greater - Seattle itself is not so bad but still bad. I am far enough out that people who live in Seattle aren't interested just based on the distance.

Fishing comparison is an interesting perspective. I don't think of myself as dating around. I am not going on dates to be going on dates. I think the difference is sport fishing versus fishing to eat. I have found that it is around the 3rd or 4th date that it starts to really become fun for me. If I think of dating as hobbie, I wouldn't do it - and I am not really dating at this point. It feels like I am fishing in a lake with no fish or like after spending all the money, getting the bait on the hook finding out that fishing season is over.

Perhaps a better comparision would be a game that co-workers and I played after work at the bar across the street. The rule we had was that loser paid (or reimbursed) and it was $1 for 4 of us to play. They were already playing when I joined the company and so were much better than me. I lost 80% of the time and so fun soon went away as well as they all got to play for almost free. I had the option of paying $1 for game with the others or $.25 to play against the computer (which I could normally beat).

There certainly maybe something that people are finding out about me that they don't care for and are just horrible at coming up with a cover reason. And why bother with the reason, many just say something like "no thanks, I don't think it is going to work out." I have tried to figure out if there was something specific and have not found anything.

I am not sure that they were interested based on that two of the executive aids where I used to work felt free to talk about going on dates with guys they were not interested for entertainment - especially if they were low on money - with other people around. And doing it multiple times with the same guy.

Paying shows a willingness to make an investment in the relationship. Often, we still get dumped after men sleep with us, when they're main goal turns out to be sex. The only way we can weed out the guys that are completely casual is to have you show some type of investment.
-- LovelySoul

This reminds me of a statement I saw on the web awhile back (paraphrased):
The only way for a man to show real interest is by paying and the only way for a woman to show interest is by having sex with the guy. So guys, if you are paying and she is not putting out then she is not really interested.

I didn't believe it at the time though as time goes on I am starting to think that maybe it is.

Kelly's comparision to play audtion does not work well. The director is already part of the play and the play is going on with some actor. The director already has an investment in the production.

In dating, at the very begining neither one has invested anything, then the (usually) man invests by asking the girl out and then is expected to invest more by paying over the next few dates. So at the end of a few dates the man has a lot more invested then the woman.

So this guy is asking the woman to invest equallying (or actually slightly less) --- and the response is almost all of them refuse to do this? Doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

Now, come on formerbanker, that's not true. Yes, men show interest by making an investment, but women don't have to have sex to show interest.

We all know men usually want sex more than they desire a relationship. With women, it's almost always the reverse. So, if we're going out with you, especially on multiple dates, it should be clear we want the relationship, but if you're going out with us, we can never be quite sure if it's because you want a relationship or just want things to get sexual. For that reason, the monetary investment in taking us out for a few meals is theoretically designed to weed out those guys who would be less serious about us and/or poor providers. It doesn't always work, but that's mostly why this courtship ritual has evolved.

I don't know your age, but it seems to me that girls who would go out with a guy they have no interest in just to be fed would more likely be young. Unless they're just blatant golddiggers, most women over 30 have learned that a boring, unproductive date just isn't worth it.

Like Cousin Dave said, if it's not fun anymore, you need to take a break. If you find yourself thinking that every woman is only going out with you so she can get a free glass of chardonnay, you've become too cynical to date....and that's also true for women who start suspecting every nice gesture a guy makes is only to get into their pants.

Take a break. Clear your head. Examine who you've been dating. Then, come back to it when you're more open to enjoying the process.

It is extraordinary how relentlessly and totally conventional women always are. We know from intelligence testing that females tend to clump around the middle, and I suspect personality-wise also.
"Women are all alike," may be true.
I did not read every comment, but I read not one from a woman who wrote, "I ask guys out and pay for it. I enjoy it, and I get to date the guys I want." Not one!
I must have been on a couple hundred dates, and except for young days (anything could happen) every woman is the same. I am at long last married. I miss the sex, but not the dating.

Women don't ask men out because they're smart; because it's a very risky strategy and tends to end badly. A woman who is very smart (and research based) on this is Heather Trexler Remoff. (Amy)

That book is great advice for women, but not for men. Your gynocentric viewpoint is tiresome. Time and time again I tell you: dating and mating strategies are not cooperative but also competitive. This is a fact of evolutionary psychology. You persistently ignore it. It almost amounts to a self-serving lie.

You give women good advice. By incompleteness, you give men shit advice.

In general, men should never take dating advice from heterosexual women.

i-holier...

You SHOULD read all the posts, you might learn a thing or two, here or there. Read what Amy suggests as well. You owe it to yourself to be as informed as possible.

How about succinct. Each half of the species has different goals in the mating game. Which, don't kid yourself, is what dating is about at it's core. Therefore it isn't in her BEST INTEREST to ask a guy out. Just like it isn't in his to ask out a woman he isn't interested in physically. It's actually quite simple. Both sides rail against it as being unfair, but some things just can't be helped. Where you go from the evolutionary basics, well now that IS a function of higher reasoning. But, it becomes less universal. IMHO anyway.

Did your own wife persue you and pay for everything, the whole time you were courting? Something musta happened there to make you two get married...

The women were - I guess - probably late 20s. There were executives aids so probably made around $10/hr and the job might have only been 30hours/wk.

I am taking a break. And I did before. Generally, I didn't find too much of a pattern in the women I date. Older, younger, more attractive, less so - no real pattern. The only think going all the way back is that very non-mainstream women tend to work best for me. 5'10" or taller also seems to be a good sign.

I thought of something else. I screen out the ladies who put too much pressure (not sure how to say it) or blatant ticking clocks. An example of this is a lady who sent me an email before the first date laying out our schedule - Engaged in 1 yr, married 6 months after that, first kid a yr after that - if things worked out. Maybe this screening is causing me to only get the fun time girls.

Look, here's the deal, and it's funny that most guys like formerbanker don't get this, but you obviously don't:

A girl in her 20s, if she is even reasonably hot, realizes that she has a unique commodity. It's hers to trade...for money...for a great lifestyle. I mean, a lot of hot young girls realize this, and who can blame them? If someone gave you a lotto ticket worth millions of dollars would you trade it in for $20,000? No! So, most young hot twenty-somethings are waiting to do the best trade they can. They want the best provider their looks can buy.

So, if you want to date 20-somethings, you need to be realistic and accept that unless your income is 6 figures, you need to tone it down in the looks dept...or wait until those women are older.

It's simple. I, as an attractive older woman, can pursue men my own age who have money, but I quickly realized that I am competing with 20-somethings for their attention.

By the luck of genetics, I could actually do that, but I also knew that the relationships woud be limited...and always threatened...so I decided to pursue men my own age without a lot of money. Quite simply, they don't have that bargaining power. They appreciate the hottest woman they can get, whereas the rich guy always thinks his money can buy more.

So, unless you're a six-figure guy, you need to give up on the hot twenty-something fantasy. If she chooses you, she won't be happy for long because she has a commodity worth trading. You're much better off with a cute girl who will fully appreciate the life you could give her.

It's harsh, but it's real. The biggest mistake people make in dating is not realizing their true market. Being mad at the really hot girl who rejects you is stupid. You would reject you if you had what she has to offer. Looks trade for money. You must be realistic.

This goes back to the craigslist ad a few years ago, and the response it got - which went something like this:

You (the hot 20 something girl) are a depreciating asset. You will never be as attractive as you are now. I, however, am very likely to continue to increase my earning power.

So you (again, not you personally, but the 20 year old hottie) better bring something to the table besides your looks, or the instant you're not hot, you're gone.

This is a knife that cuts both ways. If all you (the 20 year old hott) want is money, then you're going to have a very short period of time to have relationships. Likewise, if all you (the high-status male) want is sex, you're going to have a series of short, expensive relationships.

In either case, you'll end up miserable by the time you're 40.

Hi all,

I haven't been around for a bit, trying to study up for a new job I should be getting soon (Information Technology Security), but I have a very simple and pragmatic reason why it is bad form to expect someone else to pay for their portion of a social gathering that they were invited to.

If I invite you to an activity, I am the person choosing what activity we will do and where we will do it, and therefore I have the option of picking something within my price range and taste. I personally would no more choose to eat in a restaurant that serves $300 a plate meals than I would cut off my eyelids. If 'tell them they are paying half Bubba' is going to women and saying "I want to take you to dinner, but you are paying for half", then he is likely picking a location that is to his liking and budget, but it might not be to hers. So, you have a situation where either the two enter into a debate about the location and price of the first date or the woman just turns him down if it is out of her price range or taste. It may have nothing to do with her being a gold-digger or evolutionary psychology. This is why the person inviting is supposed to pay...they chose the activity, they should find one within their budget. If that isn't the case, what's next, people being expected to pay in dibs for a woman's wedding dress? Should I pay part of your down payment for your house warming party? Perhaps I will pay dibs on your hospital bills at your baby shower. Some social conventions and manners are there because they have a practical and logical reason. Because of that, I wouldn't date someone who invited me on a first date and then expected me to pay for half. That indicates someone who has little regard for others and just wants to ensure he hasn't invested too much so that he can back out without a loss.

For the record, my husband paid for our first date, but I paid for our second, and we traded off until we joined our finances.

-Julie

Spork said: "Wow! What an amazing concept! Deciding to see someone based on how you feel about them as a person and not what they do or don't buy for you! That's crazy enough that it just might work!"

Spork, you and a whole lot of others are missing a key thing here. Chemistry - yes. Believe it or not, chemistry is generated or dissipated by a man paying or not paying. Most women feel on some level (and it's not something they think about) cherished, cared for and protected when a man takes them out. He's not coming across as manly if she's picking up the check. Some conventions are born about because of in-depth feelings about things - take most people's instinctive dislike of snakes and spiders, for instance.
That's why I and Gail and several others are saying "The amount you spend isn't what's important." but for some reason you aren't wanting to accept that, you're thinking it's all about how much you spend, and that's just not so (at least for the non-gold-diggers).

Spork: O.k., I wasn't sure...just checking. Thanks for letting me know.

I have to admit though--if a man asked me out and then in the same breath said "by the way, you'll be picking up your tab" I probably wouldn't go out with him.

Now, for the guy who didn't specify, I'd always offer (and I have, on occasion, been accepted)--accepting doesn't seem to bother me as much as just saying so up front. Not sure why.

Though for the people who are arguing manners, I tend to think that way too. Heck, I don't call my MIL and say "Hey, wanna have lunch tomorrow?" and expect her to pay for herself since I did the inviting.

Amy--thank goodness you're advising women not to do the asking. Every time I say that, someone accusing me of practicing those ridiculous "Rules" that came out over a decade ago.

Actual I think I do have a reasonably good understanding. I guess I did not say it exactly. The point I was thinking about in the message about being out is that since ANY single women is some what rare in this neck of the woods that they have a very high value. Guys being so common have a very low value.

I was not trying to date those co-workers. And no they were not hot...one was rather cute, but the other was was kind of plain and overweight.

I generally aim for close to my age. Though have been on dates within the last few years with women from 23 to 46 (I was 33 then and she claimed only to be 39 in her profile) and all seem to have pretty much the same. It is true I am competing with a lot - when I later ran into the sandwich order she said she was dating a rich married guy who was 50-something - but she was sure he was getting divorced.

Before the former got added to my name I was knocking on 6 figures which for this area is a lot especially for someone in my age range. I didn't flaunt it nor did I try to buy a date/girlfriend - perhaps that was a mistake. Well now that I have been out of work a long time and am still not desperate about that situation maybe it was a good idea after all.

That reminds me of something that was told to me by an aquaintance of an aquaintance who generally seems like a good match for me. She is mid-30s - maybe early 30s. She said she could never see dating me because I was not willing to put out the $$$ but she could see marrying me because she knew I could always take care of her. And yeah, she is hot in a milfish way.

I used to like to treat my dates and still don't mind it on an individual bases; however, at some point it has crossed over to feeling I am being taken advantage of by women.

"She said she could never see dating me because I was not willing to put out the $$$ but she could see marrying me because she knew I could always take care of her."

I can see why you guys get discouraged, scratch your head and go WTF?!

"Eggs are expensive"

I'm sure they are. But I don't really see how that's my problem.

Men don't seem to be in as much of a hurry to have children as women are. Moreover, men don't have to worry about a biological clock. We have the option of leaving children until later in life with a younger woman.

In the game of biological chicken, women definitely lose out.

Seriously Amy. This argument is so easy to refute.

Nick S said: ""Eggs are expensive"

I'm sure they are. But I don't really see how that's my problem.

Men don't seem to be in as much of a hurry to have children as women are. Moreover, men don't have to worry about a biological clock. We have the option of leaving children until later in life with a younger woman.

In the game of biological chicken, women definitely lose out.

Seriously Amy. This argument is so easy to refute. "

Dude, you just made her point.

Amy, I understand completely how evolution and natural selection is responsible for such behavior.

The problem is that behaviors which may have served a purpose in terms of human survival in the past can often outlive their usefulness once society changes.

Historically, it may have made sense for men to invest more resources in a woman in order to have someone to carry their offspring. But why would men be more concerned about reproduction in today's society?

Nick S:

But why would men be more concerned about reproduction in today's society?

Because the future belongs to those who show up for it.

"DavidJ, did you miss me saying that despite my boyfriend asking and paying for the first date, I now spend an equal amount, if not more, money on him? I take care of him, I like taking care of him, I do not leech off him."

Uh, I didn't say otherwise; in case you missed my point, all I was really saying that the way this man is choosing women acts as a kind of "filter" that will let through only a certain (rare) type of woman. There's nothing wrong with that, nor does it mean there is something wrong with the woman - it's just different values that you don't happen to share, and I think you're not necessarily correct to disparage those values i.e. implying there is something "wrong" with women who prefer to pay their share. I've known women like that and there's nothing wrong with it; they're fiercely mentally independent, not "insecure".

I generally prefer paying on dates etc., but don't have a specific preference, since I actually admire those values too; I'm surprised and disappointed that even Amy is on the side of female entitlement on this one.

"but just because a woman expects the man to be a man and do some work doesn't make her a harpy."

On the contrary, I mostly prefer a woman to let the man be a man.

Bottom line though, and you can't get away from it: If the man is paying for the dates, one way or another he is in effect purchasing her. If you let the man pay, you are allowing yourself to be purchased. The women I know who hated being bought just hated being bought --- they weren't "insecure".

Just calling a spade a spade, though I'm sure we'd all prefer we rather continue to dress it up in prettier more euphemistic terms.

"I did not read every comment, but I read not one from a woman who wrote, "I ask guys out and pay for it. I enjoy it, and I get to date the guys I want." Not one!"

Never. No way. It would never work. If I did anything so ridiculous, the man would a) think I was desperate, and b) feel emasculated. Why do shit that doesn't work?

Wish I had time to read all the comments. In the meantime:

If a man doesn't feel like spending money on a woman he may never see again (understandable, especially if it's happened more than once) a far more gracious move might be "how about a walk in the park?" Or: "Want to see that (free) exhibit?"

At Glenn Sacks' site, many men have complained (in the dating articles; they're indexed on the lower right side) that the system of "whoever invites, pays" is unfair because women push, conciously or not, for men to do most of the inviting and paying - especially on the first date. So in theory, a man could pay for 10 women's drinks before meeting one who's willing to see him again (and vice versa) while 10 women paid nothing. Even then, of course, the 11th woman may object to the idea of her having to play hostess to him even half the time, so he'll end up paying more than his share with her anyway.

All in all, especially with the recession, I think women and men alike should work a lot harder at learning to appreciate each other's company without any money being spent. At least for the first two dates, anyway. For more on that, see the dating article in Amy Dacyczyn's book "The Complete Tightwad Gazette."

(One suggestion she makes is a home-cooked picnic, cooked by either the man or the woman. However, I will admit that hothead Marc Rudov had it right when he said that women are being stingy when they expect men to take them to restaurants but think that serving men a cheaper home-cooked meal is truly returning the favor. Chances are, after all, that even a modest restaurant charges about 10 times as much as the cost of a home-cooked meal - if you buy the ingredients on sale.)

Geeze, we're being stingy if we make you a home-cooked meal?!

Drive to the store, buy all the ingredients, including scented candles and wine...then again, maybe you'll want beer instead, so we get that too...and, not sure of all the spices and ingredients we'll need, we get a few extra...and oh, maybe some flowers...run home, cook the meal, clean the house, set the mood, put on some music, shower, apply our makeup, etc...all the while thinking you'll really appreciate the personal effort only to be considered stingy?

This is getting silly. Reminds me of a friend who once had an attorney over for dinner with her family. During the course of conversation, she asked him a legal question to which he replied briefly. A few days later, he sends her a bill, charging her for an hour of his time! So, she sent him back a bill for dinner.

This tit for tat stuff is never going to work. Life and romance doesn't balance out equally in every aspect.

Chances are, after all, that even a modest restaurant charges about 10 times as much as the cost of a home-cooked meal - if you buy the ingredients on sale.)

What price, effort?

Also, it could be considered an audition of sorts, could it not?

I suspect that we're all guilty of thinking too much about it. If you're spending your time worrying about the financial equity in dating, you're pretty much guaranteed to be headed for an ugly breakup when the inevitable financial hardship shows up.

Yes, well, apparently more and more men are agreeing with Rudov.

Men, more and more, are extricating themselves from the role of being "providers" for women. Yes, evolutionary biology is one thing, but personal self-interest will prevail every time. Men are doing a cost/benefit analysis of their relationships with, and relations to, women, and things are starting to change. This is why more women are now married to (dependent on) the State than to actual flesh-and-blood males.

Damn. The women were HOPING to be able to have it both ways ... .

Now what?

> If you're spending your time
> worrying about the financial equity
> in dating, you're pretty much
> guaranteed to be headed for an ugly
> breakup when the inevitable
> financial hardship shows up.

Even if that's not absolutely true and proportionate, it's about the best comment here.

(Aside from anything I said up there.... Y'know...)

Again, it's amazing how this one generated so much comment energy. Well... Maybe that should have been foreseen (or was foreseen, by Amy). Love is marketplace, even if the cash isn't always its primary currency: Everyone has stories to tell about their afternoon at the bazaar. But those stories cover such great range of personalities, it's hard to get general wisdom out of them.

Thank you , Crid. I do have my moments of clarity.

Speaking as a guy, I always prepare to pay for the whole thing. And I almost invariably do. (Admittedly, while I'm not rich, I'm well off enough to handle this.) But if she doesn't offer to pay her part, I feel that's generally a bad sign.

Re Anne's signalling: if she does offer to pay, you surely know by the end of an hour or two of conversation whether that's because she's polite or because she doesn't want to go out with you.

Regarding clothing and grooming expenses, I don't think that a couple of hundred bucks a month in dry cleaning and shirt laundry is unusual if you're in the suit world. And nice suits and shirts aren't so cheap, either (albeit a lot easier to select and wear). Mostly, it's easier for guys to take the "scruffy" option than it is for girls.

As for Jeff's economic analysis: quite reasonable, but I'd not likely bring it up as dinner conversation on a date!