"Who Should Pay for the Date?"

I am a female and I don't pay for dates (first dates) and I don't ask guys out (ever!).

Here are my reasons:

First of all, I'm hot (ok, just kidding-not really though)

Seriously, it kind of falls into the same line of thinking that men use when it comes to sex, "why buy a cow when the milk is free". One woman could try to put that saying to rest by withholding sex until marriage, but the problem is that the guy would just move on to the next woman that is willing to give sex. .

So as a man, you could try to ask the girl to pay, but she will most likely tell you to get lost and move onto a man that will pay for the date.

Also it is a way of figuring out how 'in to her' you really are. It has worked for centuries, that's why we are still doing it. Can you imagine if a guy does nothing to show a girl that she stands out from all the other girls, but yet still expected her to be romantic with him?

Another reason I don't pay is because when a guy asks me out, I take it literally. He's not asking me to 'meet him' somewhere, he's not asking me to 'hang out' with him, he's asking for a date.

I don't care where he takes me (I prefer casual), but the bottom line is if he asked, then he has to pay.

It's no different then me telling a girl friend that I would like to take her out for lunch for her birthday or some other celebration. I asked, therefor I'm paying.

If a relationship forms (you have the implied date every weekend) then as a couple you can decide what works for you and what each of you can afford. But I think trying to spilt a check on a first date is ridiculous.

I have a guy friend that always pays for dates, but he likes it when on a first date the girl reaches for the check or her purse as if she is going to pay her share. And then he stops her and says 'I got it". He thinks it shows class on her part. I think its just silly. Some people disagree with me, but to each his own.

I tend to like traditional roles, and therefor want a guy that is comfortable in the 'drivers seat'. I guy shouldn't have to break himself and a girl shouldn't act like a diva. But I would like to know what kind of guy he is from the start, and if he likes a girl that pays on dates, then I'm not the one for him. I'll do my share and reciprocate in other ways, but pay for a date that he asked me on? Never!!

The guy that wrote the article sounds like a real jerk. He asked the girl out on a first date, he chose an expensive restaurant and then he balks because he is expected to pay for her meal? Give me a break!

You're assuming that a woman would go out with a man who made less then her in the first place. Bwhahahaha!!!!

If a woman wants to go out on expensive dates, and wants me to be her walking ATM I just boot her to the curb. It's a win-win for me. Either I end up finding a low maintenance woman who likes me and not my money; or, I get rid of a worthless gold digger before she wastes any more of my time.

Life is to short to waste on shallow self centered parasites, who slowly suck the joy out of your life; no matter how pleasing they may look at first glance.

You seem to be basing your argument that your physical attractiveness holds value and therefore you males should pay you for the pleasure of enjoying that attractiveness.

That's all well and good for now cause it works for you. However you will learn soon enough that just as you now posses less then 10% of the eggs that you had when you started ovulating, that as your reproductive potential decreases (and it's already more then 90% gone), you will have a much harder time using your hotness to get that free night out. Then you'll get a taste of what men must do - actually seek out potential partners and have to put in more effort then looking hot to get a night out.

Why buy the cow when the milk is free? Why drink the milk past it's best before date? Since men have reproductive potential for life, there's always potentially free milk out there.

If you ask a woman to go to a specific place with you then you must expect to pay.This then has started a precedent
and she will expect you to pay all the time,and, if you don't, she will say/think that you don't value her anymore
and you will be back to first base.
Never,ever take a woman out for a meal on your first date,
find somewhere you both know,for a drink perhaps.

"Seriously, it kind of falls into the same line of thinking that men use when it comes to sex, "why buy a cow when the milk is free". One woman could try to put that saying to rest by withholding sex until marriage, but the problem is that the guy would just move on to the next woman that is willing to give sex."

What kind of nonsense is this? This basically assumes the point of your relationships is to become owned by another person. At what point did you stop being a human being and just become a piece of property to be owned by someone, in some sort of beneficial self slavery?

As long as women and men keep having the mindset that men must own women, and that women must do everything in their power to have a guy want to marry her immediately (thus signing her contract of ownership and finally having her "prince" to support her), we'll just keep seeing the same case of gender inequality where both sexes never prosper.

In fact, as from this moment onwards you should NEVER consider yourself just another piece of someone's property again. You're a strong human individual, and even if a relationship only lasts a day, or a week, or a lifetime... it's the connection that you share with them. The magic and love that you share together that matters. Not whether or not he's interested in purchasing you at the end of the day.

I think anyone that 'expects' expensive dates and sucks the joy out of life should be kicked to the curb.

However expecting the person that did the asking to pay is not out of line (in my opinion) and is usually customary in most circumstances.

I don't think gender roles are a bad thing. Wether it be taking a girl out or doing something nice for her to show her your interest is what separates the guy from the rest of the pack.

Likewise, I am sure the guy expects the girl to look good, by putting effort into appearance. Would it be considered 'shallow' if a guy showed no interest in a girl that showed up for a date looking like a hag?
After all, she might be a good catch, but he will miss out if he easily dismisses her due to her unkept look.

In every culture for millions of generations men have been putting the effort to pursue the woman. Traditions stick around because they work. Role reversals just screw up everything.

Some of my worst dates have been at expensive restaurants, that the guy chose, and some of my best dates have been low-key. I would never expect a guy to pay for more than he could afford. I'm in college and if a guy asked me to work out with him at the gym and then go back to his place to watch a DVD, that would be fine with me. But I would expect him to drive and provide the DVD. After all, he's the one that asked, and I would like to know if he really liked me by seeing how much effort he puts into being with me..

My opening comment about being hot, was meant to be tongue-n-cheek. I am not conceited enough to rate my own attractiveness. So I do not expect males to pay for the "'pleasure of enjoying that attractiveness". But I do agree with the other comments you made Paragon. "Why drink milk past the 'best before date'" proves my point.

If a guy can get the qualities he wants in a younger model, then why wouldn't he? And is he really being so terrible if he does?

If a woman can get the qualities she wants in a man AND he puts effort to show that he wants to be with her, why would a woman settle for a guy with the same qualities but makes no effort?

We all want certain qualities like honesty, good personality, etc, but we want it packaged up in the best outer wrapping. That is human nature. .

Every relationship has an element of give and take. As long as people are honest, respectful a forthcoming, I see no problem.

There are some girls that will take advantage of guys. These girls are easy to spot. If we reversed roles and had girls pay for dates, then girls would end up having sex with guys that really aren't that into them, and then girls would be taken advantage of. Somewhere we need a happy medium. Guys showing in the beginning of the relationship that they are 'into' the girl by taking her out seems to have worked for centuries.

PS-Gogland, you are taking my 'cow' comment way too literally. Plus I wrote it from an assumed man's point of view. I have no interest in getting married. .

I think not.

"We all want certain qualities like honesty, good personality, etc, but we want it packaged up in the best outer wrapping. That is human nature."

You keep betraying your intentions over and over again. You'd only refer to a person being packaged if you really did look at people as a product. Women are a product. Men are supposed to buy them. It's a sick way at looking at relationships, and a sick way of looking at yourself.

The idea that men have been paying for dates for centuries is also absurd. Dating and dating culture didn't exist until the 20th century as it's a relatively new thing. Before then such things were arranged marriages and the like. Relationships were PURELY about women being a possession for a man to own. Those were the traditions, and I doubt having women revert back into a role of subservience is really gonna work in today's society, especially when it's clear that a woman is perfectly able of providing for her own survival... well provided they can grow up enough to get to that point.

The reason the traditions MUST change is that the traditions of dating themselves are meant to dehumanize men and women completely. I mean when is the last time you actually sat across from your date and actually looked at him as a real live human being and not as "your date". You dishonour his humanity and your own humanity by looking at everything as a role that is meant to be fulfilled. If traditional dating really worked, I doubt you'd see so many men and women both burned by such system.

Gosh, Gogland, you caught me on a technicality! In my fifth paragraph, 'MILLIONS of generations' should be 'HUNDREDS of generations' and in my last paragraph, CENTURIES should be changed to DECADES in referring to how long guys have been taking girls out on dates.

If you are telling me that if you had your choice of equal qualities in women, and one was old and ugly and the other was young and hot, you would never let looks or 'packaging' influence your choice, I will take your word for it.

For most of us, I think it is fair to say, that we would take good qualities in a pleasing 'package' rather than in a unpleasant 'package' if we had a choice.

I use the word 'package' because it makes a good analogy, it gets my point across. Please don't take everything so literally!

Everyone should use whatever dating tactics work for them. I'm going to stick with mine because they work. I don't consider myself shallow. I have a lot of respect for men and I treat them well. But if a guy asks me out on a date I expect him to provide whatever it is he enticed me with, and I expect him to pick me up and drive as well. I like what I like. and make no apologies.

It's no different then a guy that likes big boobs, nice legs, a girly-girl, or a tomboy as long as no one is getting taken advantage of, I don't see any reason to only date people that meet your desires. I happen to like guys that fill the traditional male role and that includes paying for the date.

You make it sound so terrible to think of everything as a product. Of course we shouldn't loose track of our human qualities, but we are all trying to sell ourselves in some ways. Have you NEVER dressed up for any event in you life? Do you EVER think that looks matter?

I'll say it over and over again: I don't believe in trickery, dishonesty or disrespect but if everyone is getting what they want out of the relationship, who cares who pays or not.

If you want a girl that pays, I'm not criticizing, please don't criticize me for wanting a guy that does pay for dates.

PS- how would you suggest dating?

Because some forms of tradition just work too well. I would not, however, date an active feminist and I usually restrict my dating to women who are conservative to a degree anyhow.

I suggest something along the lines of those speed dating things. But instead of spending the time talking, we just get to the sex so we can stop putting up our own masks and just allow ourselves to be who we are. But I doubt anyone else could actually see the practicality in that, and considering we live in the real world I have enough sense to know ideals don't work.

If anything, I'd just stop dating, and spend more time connecting.

Incidentally, your question is ridiculous. No two women could ever have the same qualities. That's what makes every woman a unique and different experience.

you wrote:

"It's no different then a guy that likes big boobs, nice legs, a girly-girl, or a tomboy as long as no one is getting taken advantage of, I don't see any reason to only date people that meet your desires. I happen to like guys that fill the traditional male role and that includes paying for the date."

Those are physical preferences, everyone has them. Every human being has preferred physical types. It's biological.

You are talking about wanting a walking wallet. It may be debatable that there is some gene in females that wants a walking wallet, but either way it is totally unrelated to physical preferences people find attractive in another person.

You say yourself that looks matter, which implies that you have physical preferences on top of your financial preferences.

So What you basically believe is that you wanting a certain looking person who also provides you with, food entertainment and transportation is the same as a man liking a good looking woman without requiring any of those other criteria.

Oh wait, you 'take care of your man' implying or course, sex. So you place value on your sexuality and like a guy who places value on your sexuality as well.

Well, best of luck with that when you are not in your mid-twenties anymore.... 'cause guys looking for sex in return for money tend to be the kind of guys who only give a crap about looks, so when you turn forty, don't be surprised when he cashes you in for two twenties lol.

Like I said, it's not packaging as you call it. It's shelf life based on reproductive potential. Women have a shelf life due to limited reproductive potential (you ever wonder why it's universal that younger women are considered more attractive then old women?). You can package yourself however you want, but the unfortunate truth is that your looks will only get you so far.

Either I am not getting my point across or you guys are jumping to conclusions.

First of all, I don't date much, I prefer relationships and am very much a homebody and I would never trade sex for money. My idea of reciprocating would be treating him to his favorite sports event, concert, or making dinner at home or if we were in a close relationship I would do his laundry, clean his house or something.

You guys keep slamming me for even mentioning 'looks' or 'packaging', but then prove my point by reminding me that my looks will fade and then I will have trouble getting men (doesn't that prove that men care about looks?)

I've had my share of guys overlooking me. When I entered the ninth grade, I was 5'8'' (taller than most guys)had terrible crooked teeth and no sense of style (because my previous private school had a dress code). I was made fun of everyday! I never had a date to school dance or to anything.

Over the next few years I stayed in my room watching dance videos and perfected every move, had thousands of dollars of orthodontics (my teeth are perfect now!) and dyed my hair blonde. I appeared in some local TV commercials and all of a sudden every guy from high school claims to be my friend! (so some guys can be just as shallow as some girls)

Also I have said or implied over and over again that I would never take advantage of anyone. I said a guy could take me to the gym or to watch a DVD. Backyard BBQ's are my favorite kind of date. Which reminds me, everytime I have been on a expensive date, it was the GUY'S idea. At times I felt like the guy was trying to impress (buy?) me.

Maybe I would get my point across better if I said a guy paying for a date is more of a cultural thing. I would never date outside of my religion, culture or lifestyle. Will a few good men get passed up? Probably. Is it shallow? I don't think so. I'm sure a lot of guys would pass me up because I have two kids. Everyone has their prerogatives.

I come from a very high income area. I am not saying that to be a snob, but I am saying that most every guy I come in contact with from my community can well afford to take a girl out and it is customary in my culture and community for the guy to pay. Even if I am out with my brother, he picks up the tab. A guy would be laughed at by my family members if he waited for me to give him my share before settling the dinner check.

It is very important to me to date people that fit in with my family and culture. My family tends to be traditional and favors gender roles. This might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it is no different then a Greek guy dating only Greek girls or Jewish people only dating other jews.

I have dated guys below my income level (my sister just married a great guy, that makes less than her). I just want them to fill the traditional male role and that includes paying for the dinner check.

As long as everyone is honest and getting what they want out of a relationship, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Paragon,

You need to re-read what I wrote. I never said "take care of my man" implying sex. I said "do my share" and "reciprocate" and I meant just that. The relationship should never be one sided, and if it is, then someone is getting taken advantage of.

I have no need for a walking ATM or wallet, I can afford my own things and my own night out. I think I have made it perfectly clear that it is the traditional male role that I find attractive and not the amount of money spent on the date.

You say I have a 'financial preference' Doesn't everyone? I PREFER to be rich rather than poor.
And for 'physical preference' I PREFER hot rather than ugly (how shameful of me, I'm sure no one else here would prefer the same).

When it comes to physical attractiveness I implied that it should be second to honesty, good personality, etc. What's wrong with wanting some one that's physically attractive as well as the other good personality stuff? You act as if I put all the emphasis on physical attractiveness, but if you look back and read what I wrote, you will see otherwise.

As far as comparing the desire to have a man that fills the traditional male role to a man desiring a girl with big boobs and such, you will notice that I also included 'girly-girl' or 'tomboy' which are personality traits. I suppose I could have compared it to a man that desires a shy quiet girl or a loud opinionated girl.

I think you guys are assuming I only look for wealthy men. The truth is that I like almost all men (except girly men). But I am especailly attracted to personality traits similar to mine. I am smart, self disciplined and VERY goal oriented. I was on my own since I was 17. Most guys that share these traits happen to be successful in their careers, therefore as a result tend to wealthy (if not they will be soon as many of the guys are still in college).

When it come to physical attractiveness it's sort of the same thing. I want some one that's my 'equal'. I ride 50 miles a week on my bike and do yoga and/or dance everyday. So I may not be attracted to some one that's out of shape, it is not because I am shallow, it is because I want some one with a similar lifestyle and values as me.

I also look for some one that has the same value on clothes, style and hair that I do. This may surprise you guys that I put a LOW value on this. I hate to shop. My usual every day look is no make up, hair pulled back in a pony, athletic type clothing (track suit or jersey from my favorite team), and sneakers. If I go out it is: a little make up, hair down, tight jeans and heels. I hate to dress up beyond that. I could never date a guy that likes designer clothes or dressing up.

I do agree with you that people that put all the emphasis on looks and physical attractiveness will get burned in the end. That is why I specifically put personality qualities first and then try and get those qualities wrapped up in a pleasing 'package'.

I assume that most of you here fall into some gender roles. Do you prefer to drive when you are out with a female? Do you ever wear a skirt on a hot day? If you were married, did your wife change her last name or did you insist that she keep her's? Would you ever by a doll for a boy's gift or would you opt for the double barrel squirt gun? Would you buy something for yourself in pink if it was the last one the store had?

Some people have no problem crossing traditional gender lines. And to each his own, but usually people seek out romantic partners that have a similar view on this as their own. If everything equals out in the end (and I have repeatedly implied that it should!) then I still don't see any problem.

If a guy can't afford to take me to dinner, he should ask to take me for a drink. No problem. I would prefer that instead of the guy asking me out to an expensive restaurant and then saying "oh, by the way, your amount of the check is....."

In my book, if you do the asking then you have to do the paying.