Why does the guy pay (or not)?

[DJOkawari]

I always split costs on dates - I think it sends the message I would like to send: we're equal partners in this adventure. I've never had a direct complaint, but if a lady is offended in that regard, then she isn't right for me - I'm interested in finding an equal.

 

On later dates, I may pick an expensive option for a date and I'll cover it entirely as that's the experience I wanted to have. When it comes to a relationship I stop counting and it becomes more a matter of how to have the best shared life with our shared resources.

[misspond]

At the end of the day I think everyone needs to be comfortable with whatever they're comfortable with. I'm always happy to get my purse out and put down my half of the bill, whether it's a first date or a subsequent date. It's been such a long time since I was in an LTR I can't remember how we used to work it.

 

As for dating now, even if he asked me out I'll always offer and mean it, to pay my half and if he insists on paying then I won't fight it.

[beyond]

It's the way things are....

 

The lady ALWAYS comes first, especially in a newer relationship. Guy pays the bill. He also opens the door for her, lets her order first, and caters to her needs and makes her feel comfortable.

 

I've probably paid for 90% of the dates, entertainment, travel for my lady over the years. And as time goes on, if she invites you out or offers to pay half, let her. She's showing some respect for you and appreciates your company. Also, as time goes on she will give you gifts, make you dinner and do other things where she pays the bill. And you'll buy her gifts, too. But NEVER put the pressure on her that she has to.

 

I just planned a trip for my lady that will cost several grand... and I'm not asking her for a penny, but I'm sure she'll offer. But I don't want her to feel obligated one bit.

 

(also, in the bedroom, the lady comes first, too).

 

That's life.

 

You sir, are perfect

[OldRover]

You sir, are perfect

 

Thanks much... it's worked very well for me.....

 

As a matter of fact, buying dinner tonight for my GF and looking forward to it.

[HereNorThere]

It depends on how far back you want to take this -

 

Evolutionary speaking, men were the hunters and brought back the food for dinner. The modern day equivalent is the swiping of your card to pay now.

 

Then you have the fact that up until our very recent modern times, women were not a part of the workforce and did not have money to pay in the first place. Of course, this has since changed, but you can research the concept of chivalry and it's roots in society.

 

Lastly, go read the thread about "Is he cheap"

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/romantic/dating/541083-he-cheap

 

Men are deathly afraid of coming off as cheap and in a lot of cases, if he accepts a woman's money, he risks doing so. This seems to get better over time in a relationship, but it's very present in the beginning of courtship.

[Ruby Slippers]

This argument would apply if you lived in the wild, and spent your days being barefoot and pregnant living out of a hut. But in a modern civilized society where women have good paying jobs and higher education, your argument is BS IMO.

A small team of cunning social engineers has brainwashed people to believe certain things. But our biology and evolutionary stable strategies have not changed. In most cases, women are more attracted and feel more feminine with men who are happy to provide. Men in competition with other men for the favor and company of women will be more successful when they protect and provide for women.

 

But again, if I were a man, I would never provide for a woman who hadn't proved herself worthy. I would never take a woman I didn't know on an expensive first date, a woman who hadn't proved herself as sincere and loyal on a nice vacation.

 

a woman should not get to act like a freeloader under the guise of "chivalry" IMO.

Personally, I've never demanded that the man provide financially. For most of my 20s, I insisted upon splitting expenses equally. Now in my 30s, I've figured out that the best men find great satisfaction in providing for a woman who loves him, appreciates him, and returns his generosity in all kinds of ways. I still offer sincerely to split expenses, but the kind of men I'm attracted to (masculine, confident, leader types who want a big, happy family) generally just laugh off the suggestion that I would pay for anything.

[beyond]

Thanks much... it's worked very well for me.....

 

As a matter of fact, buying dinner tonight for my GF and looking forward to it.

 

Really lovely attitude OldRover. I feel the same as you, and am lucky enough to have always had bfs like you. I would NEVER take advantage or feel they HAD to pay and would very often, as time went on offer to pay. Sometimes it was accepted, sometimes not, but always graciously. For my part, I loved cooking for my man and buying him little thoughtful things. I never felt I had to in anyway, but WANTED to as a token of my love and because I felt so loved and appreciated by him.

 

There were of course, lots of way I showed my love for him in the bedroom as well:love: So it was a real circle of love and respect which made us BOTH happy.

 

Hope you and your gf have a lovely meal tonight

[beyond]

It depends on how far back you want to take this -

 

Evolutionary speaking, men were the hunters and brought back the food for dinner. The modern day equivalent is the swiping of your card to pay now.

 

Then you have the fact that up until our very recent modern times, women were not a part of the workforce and did not have money to pay in the first place. Of course, this has since changed, but you can research the concept of chivalry and it's roots in society.

 

Lastly, go read the thread about "Is he cheap"

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/romantic/dating/541083-he-cheap

 

Men are deathly afraid of coming off as cheap and in a lot of cases, if he accepts a woman's money, he risks doing so. This seems to get better over time in a relationship, but it's very present in the beginning of courtship.[/b][/b]

 

So save any ambiguity and ALWAYS pay for the first few dates. By the way, I'm not talking about expensive dates. I would be very happy with a coffee or a drink in a cosy pub or a walk in a park.

 

I did once date someone 12 years younger than me (don't judge me lol!) He was still at uni and worked evenings in a low paid job. He INSISTED on paying for everything when we went out. I loved him for his gallantry and didn't want to make him feel less of a man by outright refusing to let him pay but felt uncomfortable, especially going to expensive restaurants. So I'd often suggest we'd take a picnic somewhere or I would cook or choose more affordable restaurants.

[beyond]

A small team of cunning social engineers has brainwashed people to believe certain things. But our biology and evolutionary stable strategies have not changed. In most cases, women are more attracted and feel more feminine with men who are happy to provide. Men in competition with other men for the favor and company of women will be more successful when they protect and provide for women.

 

But again, if I were a man, I would never provide for a woman who hadn't proved herself worthy. I would never take a woman I didn't know on an expensive first date, a woman who hadn't proved herself as sincere and loyal on a nice vacation.

 

 

Personally, I've never demanded that the man provide financially. For most of my 20s, I insisted upon splitting expenses equally. Now in my 30s, I've figured out that the best men find great satisfaction in providing for a woman who loves him, appreciates him, and returns his generosity in all kinds of ways. I still offer sincerely to split expenses, but the kind of men I'm attracted to (masculine, confident, leader types who want a big, happy family) generally just laugh off the suggestion that I would pay for anything.

 

Total agree Ruby, well said.

[OldRover]

A small team of cunning social engineers has brainwashed people to believe certain things. But our biology and evolutionary stable strategies have not changed. In most cases, women are more attracted and feel more feminine with men who are happy to provide. Men in competition with other men for the favor and company of women will be more successful when they protect and provide for women.

 

But again, if I were a man, I would never provide for a woman who hadn't proved herself worthy. I would never take a woman I didn't know on an expensive first date, a woman who hadn't proved herself as sincere and loyal on a nice vacation.

 

 

Personally, I've never demanded that the man provide financially. For most of my 20s, I insisted upon splitting expenses equally. Now in my 30s, I've figured out that the best men find great satisfaction in providing for a woman who loves him, appreciates him, and returns his generosity in all kinds of ways. I still offer sincerely to split expenses, but the kind of men I'm attracted to (masculine, confident, leader types who want a big, happy family) generally just laugh off the suggestion that I would pay for anything.

 

good points, and the man doesn't have to provide expensive first dates, especially if they are just getting to know each other. They should have some feelings as to where things are going after two or three dates, and then can spend accordingly.

 

I'd still rather pick up the tab, even if after a months' of dating things didn't work out. But I doubt we would be going on $200 dinners and thousand dollar trips in the first month.

[mrldii]

OKCupid should throw out their 1,001 Questions to Ensure Compatibility and whittle it down to two simple ones:

 

"Who should pay on the first date? Why?"

 

 

The answer to the first question may or may not matter...but, what it is articulated in the second answer will predict, with probably more assuredness than any other possible question, whether or not two people would be a good match.

 

 

If all the people who believe the man should because it's the "man's job", there'd be no mismatches of "feminazis" with traditional men; the traditional men could be partnered with what other men view as "entitled princesses".

 

The people who believe whomever extends the invite pays would be matched with those who were raised with similar social-graces and values.

 

There would be no more misunderstandings over "3-Date Rules"/I-paid-so-now-you-have-to-put-out, as those who believe it should always be Dutch would now be going out with one another.

 

And so on, and so on...

 

 

I may start a new online dating service...hmmmmm...

[OldRover]

Really lovely attitude OldRover. I feel the same as you, and am lucky enough to have always had bfs like you. I would NEVER take advantage or feel they HAD to pay and would very often, as time went on offer to pay. Sometimes it was accepted, sometimes not, but always graciously. For my part, I loved cooking for my man and buying him little thoughtful things. I never felt I had to in anyway, but WANTED to as a token of my love and because I felt so loved and appreciated by him.

 

There were of course, lots of way I showed my love for him in the bedroom as well:love: So it was a real circle of love and respect which made us BOTH happy.

 

Hope you and your gf have a lovely meal tonight

 

Yep, you've got a great attitude, like my GF... she did dinner last night and I beat her in Monopoly..... then I got a back scratch.....

[DJOkawari]

Reading over these posts, I'm more interested in the topic now. It seems a number of people really feel that the guy is there to provide for the girl. The sorts of thing ladies have written about in regards to "doing in return": offering to pay (but being turned off by the idea of actually doing it), having sex, being sincere and loyal, cooking, and buying small things (all taken from previous posts).

 

I guess the main question I have is, isn't your boyfriend/husband doing those things for you? Isn't he buying you little things, cooking, treating you well in the bedroom, and being loyal and sincere? I'm only asking because when I'm in love, that is what I'm doing...and I feel other guys are doing the same. In a loving relationship are those even things worth listing?

 

I think we can all agree that it's not about the give and take but instead about love, caring, respect, and affection which can't be measured anyway.

 

The reason for my post was that overwhelmingly, the most listed quality by both guys and girls in this thread was that the girl, in return, "takes care of" the guy in the bedroom. I honestly would not feel respected at all in the situation where a girl thinks that because she's spending time with me and having sex with me, I need to pay for everything. I would feel like she isn't there for me, but rather for what I can provide for her.

 

I've been with girls like that, it wasn't a good feeling. More recently, I was with a girl who barely made enough to get by. Naturally, I covered all of our expenses. I enjoyed it because I enjoy providing, but I also didn't feel taken advantage of as I knew that if the situation were reversed in the future, she would cover me as well. Of course, who knows if we would've even gotten that far if I couldn't pay for her initially

 

 

Note: I'm in my early/mid twenties so largely I'm asking these questions because I am still settling on how I would like to be in life.

Edited August 3, 2015 by DJOkawari

[jay1983]

I talk a lotta sh*t on here, but when it comes down to it, I pay. Cause I already know what the deal is. lol

[Keenly]

I love this topic because you get to watch women speak out of both sides of their mouth.

 

Signed: a guy who insists on paying every time. ( her presence is equal reciprocation, otherwise I wouldn't have asked her out)

[S_A]

Don't date a guy that does not pay. A guy that does not pay is essentially saying you are not worth your 25-30 dollar portion of the tab. Think of a guy not paying as an easy way to filter out crap guys (no need to go out on a second date now).

 

I personally don't care if the woman I am dating is total alpha, really "modern", or even had a bigger cock than me, she is not paying. She is not paying even if I don't want to see her again.

 

Women would be better off going about the paying thing like they have all the leverage over men and that they (women) have what the guy wants, so the guy should pay. I do not think it is even about the guy being the provider; I think there is nothing wrong with a couple where the woman makes more money.

 

There are exceptions (though not a lot of them) to the rule that the guy should pay when he asks you out. Though I'll add that he should also pay even if the woman asked him out.

Edited August 3, 2015 by S_A

[fitnessfan365]

A small team of cunning social engineers has brainwashed people to believe certain things. But our biology and evolutionary stable strategies have not changed. In most cases, women are more attracted and feel more feminine with men who are happy to provide. Men in competition with other men for the favor and company of women will be more successful when they protect and provide for women.

 

But again, if I were a man, I would never provide for a woman who hadn't proved herself worthy. I would never take a woman I didn't know on an expensive first date, a woman who hadn't proved herself as sincere and loyal on a nice vacation.

 

 

Personally, I've never demanded that the man provide financially. For most of my 20s, I insisted upon splitting expenses equally. Now in my 30s, I've figured out that the best men find great satisfaction in providing for a woman who loves him, appreciates him, and returns his generosity in all kinds of ways. I still offer sincerely to split expenses, but the kind of men I'm attracted to (masculine, confident, leader types who want a big, happy family) generally just laugh off the suggestion that I would pay for anything.

 

Haha.. Once again I love how the term "best" gets used for men that always pay. Being confident, masculine, and a leader are personality traits not tied to a man's wallet. I know that some women like to claim that it's a factor so men will be terrified of looking "cheap". But a woman that never pays at all is cheap herself IMO. Now as I said before I am old fashioned and enjoy planning/paying most of the time. But since a relationship involves two people, nothing - including money- should ever be one sided.

 

BTW - Of course a man will turn down splitting the bill. It's an awkward pain in the ass to have a waiter get separate checks or divide the total over two different credit cards. Women know a guy won't want to go through the hassle, so it's an empty offer. Instead, if a guy has paid for the last 3-4 dates in a row, you simply insist on paying the whole bill.

[DJOkawari]

Don't date a guy that does not pay. A guy that does not pay is essentially saying you are not worth your 25-30 dollar portion of the tab. Think of a guy not paying as an easy way to filter out crap guys (no need to go out on a second date now).

 

I'm confused by this. A guy would have showed her what he thinks of her by how he treated her, by how much fun they had, by if he wants to see her again, etc. Please explain the "crap guy" thing. A lady earlier wrote something similar but in inverse, the "best guys" will always pay. I found that amusing as well.

 

I never really analyzed my behavior, but after giving it some thought:

 

If the first date is just coffee or something, definitely it's going to be split - it's barely a cost to anyone. If it is a nice restaurant that I picked, I'm going to pay for it completely, but then I put the onus on her for the next date (she has to plan and pay for it). If she picked the location on the first date, I'll usually split it.

 

For me it's a matter of self-worth. I am worth her picking up her share of the tab. Obviously if things go well and we start dating and a relationship or whatever, I'll start picking up a lot more for her.

[joseb]

Ah, this old chestnut!

 

Personally I don't believe there is any reason for a guy to pay more or less than a woman when dating unless there are good financial reasons for it.

 

Doing otherwise is saying that the guy is in some way inferior, and only deserving of the woman's attention if he pays for it.

 

The arguments from cave man times make little sense in todays society where women are not constantly pregnant. Rape was also commonplace back then, and you won't see me making a case for it today.

 

I think the real origins of the guy paying for everything is more likely to have evolved from the early days of prostitution. When you think about it, it's odd that a guy who pays for all expenses in a sexual relationship today is regarded in such high esteem, where as a guy who pays a woman directly rather than indirectly is regarded as pathetic and in many countries is breaking the law.

[PrettyEmily77]

Haha.. Once again I love how the term "best" gets used for men that always pay. Being confident, masculine, and a leader are personality traits not tied to a man's wallet. I know that some women like to claim that it's a factor so men will be terrified of looking "cheap". But a woman that never pays at all is cheap herself IMO. Now as I said before I am old fashioned and enjoy planning/paying most of the time. But since a relationship involves two people, nothing - including money- should ever be one sided.

 

BTW - Of course a man will turn down splitting the bill. It's an awkward pain in the ass to have a waiter get separate checks or divide the total over two different credit cards. Women know a guy won't want to go through the hassle, so it's an empty offer. Instead, if a guy has paid for the last 3-4 dates in a row, you simply insist on paying the whole bill.

 

 

Man, this is such a depressing way of looking at how to start a relationship. With all these rigid views about who pays what when, it's almost like you're forgetting the part about, you know, feelings...

 

 

Pretty sure the BF had no strategies or rules about what or how often to pay before we met, and I went in without any sort of expectations. I have very strong feelings towards my BF, irrespective of the fact that he has refused that I pay when we go out, and he has never expected anything of me in return. That's just one aspect of a R, and as long as both partners feel they are getting something worthwhile out of it (not to do with money, obvs) then all is good, IMO.

Edited August 3, 2015 by PrettyEmily77

[Shining One]

My personal preference is to take turns during the initial dating phase. If Person A asks out Person B, Person A pays for the first date. If Person B decides during the first date that they want to discontinue the dating process, they split the bill. If they wish to continue, Person B pays for the second date and they continue taking turns until they are in a committed relationship. At that point, do whatever makes sense for the relationship. Whomever has more disposable income should handle an appropriately larger portion of the dates.

OKCupid should throw out their 1,001 Questions to Ensure Compatibility and whittle it down to two simple ones:

 

"Who should pay on the first date? Why?"

 

The answer to the first question may or may not matter...but, what it is articulated in the second answer will predict, with probably more assuredness than any other possible question, whether or not two people would be a good match.

This is a brilliant idea and would eliminate the payment awkwardness at the end of the date. I would expand further and make the first part of the question multiple choice (with a last option for "Other") so that the responses can be used in filters. Men who want an equal partner can filter out all of the "men should always pay" women.

[Ruby Slippers]

I honestly would not feel respected at all in the situation where a girl thinks that because she's spending time with me and having sex with me, I need to pay for everything. I would feel like she isn't there for me, but rather for what I can provide for her.

 

Instead, if a guy has paid for the last 3-4 dates in a row, you simply insist on paying the whole bill.

 

I think the real origins of the guy paying for everything is more likely to have evolved from the early days of prostitution.

As I stated, I still sincerely offer to pay at least half of all expenses. Because I love my man, I would happily pay my share. But I'm being honest when I tell you that I feel more secure, treasured, and adored because he provides for me. I wouldn't love him any less if he didn't - but I feel more valued by him because he does.

 

A prostitute doesn't love her john, doesn't offer to pay for anything, and never would.

 

As I also stated, I have offered more than a dozen times to pay for things with my boyfriend, and in every case he has refused. Even when I tried to sneak the bill while he was looking away, he wasn't having it.

 

I think smart men provide in part because it makes them happy to do so, and in part because of basic competitive instincts. They know that if they don't provide for a good, loving, attractive woman, there's a very long line of men who will. If he loves her and values her, he won't want to risk losing her to someone who does a better job of proving his soundness as a husband, father of her children, and provider for their family.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Ruby Slippers

[PrettyEmily77]

As I stated, I still sincerely offer to pay at least half of all expenses. Because I love my man, I would happily pay my share. But I'm being honest when I tell you that I feel more secure, treasured, and adored because he provides for me. I wouldn't love him any less if he didn't - but I feel more valued by him because he does.

 

A prostitute doesn't love her john, doesn't offer to pay for anything, and never would.

 

As I also stated, I have offered more than a dozen times to pay for things with my boyfriend, and in every case he has refused. Even when I tried to sneak the bill while he was looking away, he wasn't having it.

 

I think smart men provide in part because it makes them happy to do so, and in part because of basic competitive instincts. They know that if they don't provide for a good, loving, attractive woman, there's a very long line of men who will. If he loves her and values her, he won't want to risk losing her to someone who does a better job of providing for her and proving his soundness as a husband, father of her children, and provider for their family.

 

 

My BF does that too. It's a bit disconcerting at first but I got to learn it's his way of showing he cares. He doesn't have to as I'm my own person, but I don't have much of a choice in the matter so I've just accepted it.

[Ruby Slippers]

My BF does that too. It's a bit disconcerting at first but I got to learn it's his way of showing he cares. He doesn't have to as I'm my own person, but I don't have much of a choice in the matter so I've just accepted it.

Yes. And I still thank him sincerely, every single time he takes me out to dinner, brings me food, buys the groceries, pays for anything, does anything nice for me.

 

And he usually says something like, "Thank you, dear. I am lucky."

[jay1983]

Ruby aren't you always saying that if a man doesn't pay the whole check, he'll never see you again and he's not a man all that?