There’s no reason (except for convention) that men should pay for women on a first date. And for me, convention is not enough.
The bill arrives. My date reaches for his wallet. “Let’s split it,” I say, reaching for mine.
“Nope, it’s on me,” he replies, waving me off.
“Are you sure?”
“Yep,” he says, and I don’t push further.
♦◊♦
As unlikely as it may seem, I actually prefer to split the check. The first date is a very early stage in what could, if the stars align, become a relationship, and I prefer to enter it as equal stakeholders. We don’t need to count pennies or split hairs, but I always appreciate establishing a baseline of egalitarianism early in the game.
If you’re on a date with me, I promise you won’t be penalized for accepting my offer to split. I won’t think you’re less of a gentleman, and I won’t think it means you don’t like me. I will deduce only that you are a reasonable guy who is comfortable with my confidence and the fact that I also earn a decent paycheck. In fact, I might just find you more attractive.
♦◊♦
I’ve been doing the wallet-shuffle on a regular basis these days, as I’ve taken up online dating. Most guys offer to pay on the first date, and some feel that it’s an important display of chivalry, courtesy, or traditionalism. You are all taught that you need to offer, and that not doing so will result in accusations of cheapskatery. I wish I could tell you that your fears were idle, but unfortunately a contingent of my peers with some antiquated assumptions would quickly prove me wrong.
A coworker recently described to me her love of online dating. Was it the fascinating people? The quirky new bars and restaurants? The stimulating conversation? The fleeting and easily demolished potential for new romance? No. No, no, and no. She loves online dating because “I get so many free meals!” She tries to schedule at least two online dates a week, strictly to balance her budget. Yikes.
That is exactly the attitude that would infuriate me, were I an online-dating dude. Ladies, you are doing yourself a disservice. If you’re not interested in the gentleman across the table enough to halve the bill, you should not have accepted the date in the first place. Taking the “consolation prize” of a free dinner is a pretty abusive use of your feminine wiles.
♦◊♦
I’m not attempting to undermine one of the foundational tenets of the dating code (okay, yes I am), but give me a break. It’s manipulative and fake to accept online dates for the free food. The very fact that you found each other on the internet implies an equal footing that you’re ruining with your shallow, money-grubbing ways.
Perhaps I’m being too harsh. It feels good to treat someone and it feels good to be treated. What’s wrong with that? Objectively, nothing. I only bristle at the concept when the treaters and the treatees split cleanly down gender lines. In this day and age, there is no reason except convention that men should pay for women on a first date. And to my mind, convention is not enough.
So what to do? Here I am, a 23-year-old modern lady telling you I prefer to split the check, and yet I’m also telling you that doing so may land you in hot water with some of my peers. I suppose it depends on what you want out of your first date. If you’re looking to get laid, for some women, a free dinner just might push them over the edge. As for me, by the time dessert arrives, I’ve decided whether I want to sleep with you, and whose credit card covers the bill isn’t going to change my decision one way or the other. And if you’re looking to start something that might become a relationship, wouldn’t you rather someone who prefers to contribute to it equally?
And ladies, please, please, please stop relying on a crutch of chivalry to get your free dinners. Demanding he foot the bill for your pumpkin ravioli in exchange for your company is a watered down version of the sugar-daddy syndrome. Instead, offer to share the cost of your shared experience, and set yourself up for equality down the line. By splitting the expense of your evening, you are creating the basic understanding that you are both self-sufficient adults, voluntarily participating in the now antiquated ritual of conversing over food before deciding whether to get it on.
About Emily Heist Moss
Vocalyze
I totally agree, I’ve always found the idea of letting a guy pay for my half completely strange. It is really entrenched in Britain as well, though – I’ve heard female friends speaking as if they have some ‘right’ to be paid for just because they are women, despite earning good money themselves. It just doesn’t make any sense in the world we live in. Always pay your way, whatever gender you are!
Great piece, Emily! I especially liked the recognition of the pressures men face to pay — and the linked fear of being the cheapskate. That’s a haunting fear.
Of course, to play devil’s advocate: to get ready for the average first date, who spends more on grooming products? Whose haircut probably cost more? From that standpoint, having the guy pay makes good sense much of the time for reasons that have everything to do with fairness and nothing to do with chivalry.
Seriously? You have GOT to be kidding. First, grooming products are not one-shot type deals. Sure, they may pay $10 dollars for that sweet smelling body lotion, but they wear it anyway and it’s one usage, of which there are dozens in the bottle. Unless the guy is taking you to McDonald’s and ordering off the dollar menu, the two numbers aren’t even in the same ballpark. Also, you completely ignore the grooming that men have to do. Dry clean the shirt, get the shoes polished, shave (razors are more expensive than makeup… especially if you have a really course beard and burn through 5 dollar razor blades in a couple days) plus all the rest of the grooming products which are essentially the same.
It isn’t possible for you to try any harder at throwing men under the bus and putting women on a higher pedestal.
CJ, really? “Razors are more expensive than make-up.” WTF? What razor? What make-up?
I spend at least 10 dollars a week on razor blades. Women are not burning through 10 dollars worth of makeup in a week unless they’re zsa zsa gabor.
CJ, you really should look into using a single-blade safety razor. Especially if your beard is as coarse as you say, because once you learn to use it, you’ll find you get an even better shave than the mach-8s or whatever the latest are. Plus, at less than 20 cents a blade, you could change it every day and still spend less than a buck a week on blades.
I have the thickest hair probably in the history of the world. The hair on my head is so thick that my stylist can’t even use trimmers because it always jams them. My beard is even worse. combine a super coarse beard with extremely sensitive skin and unless my blade is incredibly sharp (1 or 2 uses old) I’m looking like sergeant splotch.
I would bet money that the average white-collar man spends more in a given year on razorblades than women do on makeup. I’m surprised you don’t have experience wearing makeup, but I’m sure you realize that you don’t cake your face with it and that it lasts quite a while. Sure, that nice rouge may have cost you $XX dollars, but it’s going to last you a year at least.
Check out the prices on makeup at a department store (Macy’s, Nordstroms) and you will change your tune. That stuff is PRICEY.
Not that I wear it — I hate makeup.
I know how much it costs… but the point is that it lasts quite a while. You’re not going through a thing of foundation every month.
Agreed, it is a dumb comparison.
Dinner dates aren’t that much fun, anyway. Too awkward. It’s better to do something light and inexpensive, like going to the farmer’s market, or the zoo, or the local art & wine festival or something.
Exactly. Women aren’t required to wear makeup. If they choose to incur that cost, that’s up to them. A man should be obligated to repay her for what she chooses to spend on grooming anymore than she should be expecting to “pay” him if he insists on paying for a meal.
Don’t forget women’s razors – more expensive, but not used up so quickly, and more expensive shaving cream – when making this calculation.
That said, I totally agree with this article, and wouldn’t want to go out with someone who wouldn’t let me pay for things half the time – men are a bit stuck either way. But then, I suppose it is a way to weed out the people you don’t want to go out with!
This made my day – an earnest conversation about the cost of razors vs. make up! hahaha. I could be wrong, but I don’t think that Hugo’s point was 100% serious.
Go read Hugo’s blog.
What? Women go out and buy makeup and get their hair cut just for a particular date? Is that your argument? So, the average woman makes a special trip to the mall and drops $50 bucks at the MAC counter for every date? Wrong pal. She already owns the makeup. She is already going to get her hair done. She has to go to work the next day. Remember, this is 2011. She probably has a job just like he does.
Bottom line: there is no reason for the man to be the one to be expected to pay – especially if she or he considers him and/or she considers herself a feminist. In that case, they should definitely be splitting the check.
You are correct.
One thing she forgot is that men don’t care if women wear designer clothes and perfume. Make up doesn’t hurt, and men cannot tell the difference between economy concealer and expensive concealer, so she can easily go the economy route. Same thing with clothes. I doubt she bought a brand new outfit for the date. If she did, who cares. I certainly would not notice.
I think it’s funny that women spread misinformation like this amoungst other women without asking men. Sometimes I think they do it on purpose. If they don’t get the real story, they can continue to make baseless justifications for men buying them dinner.
I only go on a date to see if I have chemistry with that person. If we don’t, I go my way and she goes her way. Why should I shoulder the entire loss?
I swear, women won’t be happy until men are literally their slaves.
I was really looking forward to reading this piece, having had this conversation with many friends many times, but I confess to being disappointed. I expected a more thoughtful discussion of gender and sexuality expectations, salary comparisons, social norms vs. feminist convictions, maybe a “who asked whom” scenario, but didn’t really see much of those.
In my discussions with friends (both gay and straight), “getting a free meal” was way down on the list of reasons for holding the check dance. Maybe I’m being naive and some friends really ARE in it for budgetary reasons, but most of the conversations have revolved around the “if he/she pays, does he/she expect sex” talk. I was surprised by how many straight women said they thought the answer was yes, and felt pressured by that, thus prompting them to go dutch if they didn’t want the expectation to put out. Most friends who date the same gender didn’t feel this same pressure.
Other straight women said if he obviously made more money than they did (say paralegal vs. investment banker), then they expected him to pay, but if the financial circumstances seemed more equal (both grad students), then the women were inclined to split. I thought THAT was particularly interesting, as that’s making all kinds of assumptions, and yet this was a pretty standard answer.
As for myself, I date both men AND women, so that throws another wrench in the game. If I’m on a first date with a man, I expect him to pay. I’ll offer, but prefer that he pony up for the whole meal, and yes, this harkens back to the days of chivalry and traditionalism and the possibly misguided assumption that if he’s a gentleman and actually invested in who I am as a person, he won’t mind taking me out (paying to take me out) to dinner. With women, though, that’s a lot more complicated. Did she ask me, or did I ask her? I find there’s an expectation that whoever asks, pays. If it’s a more mutual decision, “we should go out sometime,” then I still expect an offer, but will probably split it. Unless I’M feeling like the chivalrous one and decide to pick up the tab, or SHE’S being all butch and wants to pick it up herself.
That’s where the chemistry between people comes in, and frankly, I think it’s the same when dating a man, too. I don’t assume that because a I want a man to pay for dinner and because that man does want to pay for dinner, that he sees me as the pretty little lady in the high heels pulling a roast out of the oven in the 1950s. I think that’s doing us both a disservice.
Overall though, the consensus among friends was that if the date doesn’t offer to pay, he/she is getting demerits. The check dance is 100% expected at the end of the meal. Even if the couple does end up going dutch.
I took you semi-seriously until you said “If I’m on a first date with a man, I expect him to pay. I’ll offer, but prefer that he pony up for the whole meal, and yes, this harkens back to the days of chivalry and traditionalism and the possibly misguided assumption that if he’s a gentleman and actually invested in who I am as a person, he won’t mind taking me out (paying to take me out) to dinner.”
Please explain how him paying is required to show he is actually invested in who you are as a person, and how you not paying doesn’t show that you’re just some freeloading mooch.
Please explain how a man paying is a requirement for him showing he’s invested and interested in who you are as a person, and how you not picking up anything doesn’t show that you’re just a mooch.
“and yes, this harkens back to the days of chivalry and traditionalism and the possibly misguided assumption that if he’s a gentleman and actually invested in who I am as a person, he won’t mind taking me out ”
It appears to me that this hearkens back to the days of female entitlement and narcissism, where women exploit men financially for their own comfort and enjoyment.
A man paying for a woman on a date makes sense in a traditional culture, where a married woman is engaged with children and family and is financially dependent on her spouse. In this case, the man is signalling his willingness and ability to provide and care for her. But in a modern society where women are strong and financially independent, presuming a man should pay for them is just exploitative.
When I was single, I never expected a man to pay for dinner. I always offered to split the check. If he really insisted, I’d tell him to let me pay next time. That’s also a good way to indicate that you hope there is a next time– if he says, “uh, no, in that case we’d better split it now” — I know the date didn’t go well, LOL.
On the other hand, I’ve had plenty of guys tell me that I’m “too independent” and that seems to bother them. It seems like men aren’t sure what they want. They want women who will pay their own way, but don’t be too successful or independent please.
If so many straight women thought that him paying build an expectation from him about sex and if they didn’t want that expectation they would offer to go dutch, wouldn’t that make that a reliable indicator for the guy? Offer to pay and expect sex if she doesn’t offer to go dutch? Is that really what you want?
As an ex online-dater, I can attest that this is the reason I stopped. So many dates where it was always expected that I pay, and not one of them ever turned into a second date. The one online date I had where we split actually did turn into multiple dates. Maybe I can’t get as many dates using non-online options, but every single one of those has been more satisfying than online dates; even the offline ones where I paid, and I no longer find myself thinking of women as nothing but gold-digging bitches.
Just because a woman didn’t go on a second date with you doesn’t mean that she was just using you for a meal. She probably went on the date really hoping to find someone that she clicked with but, for whatever reason, decided that you two weren’t a good match. I have lots of female friends and no one has ever indicated that food was their main motivation for going on a first date. One dinner is hardly gold – it’s really not that big of an incentive. I’m glad that you no longer think of women as “nothing but gold-digging bitches”.
Maybe this is just archaic, convoluted protocol, but I think it’s polite and diplomatic to offer to pay for the meal, even if there is no real sense of my being obligated to pay. I don’t offer in order to put you in my debt or anything like that. I accept a “no, let’s split it” very easily.
Also, I offer to pay not so much to make a positive statement as to avoid a negative conclusion — no man wants to look like a tightwad on a first date. I can’t imagine any woman ever saying, “what I really fell in love with was his frugality.” (Same with using a coupon on a dinner date. I’ll never make THAT mistake again….)
What seems more common today is the idea that the person who made the invitation is the one who pays , somewhat independent of the gender. The one who asks out the other is the one expected to pay, and the polite thing is for the other one to offer to pay the whole or at least half.
A guy I’d been on a couple dates with asked me to split the cost of a $35 coupon book so we could go out to places we had coupons for. Now THAT was romantic.
First of all, anyone who uses men for free dinners in just awful. Tell your friend that. She should be ashamed. I’ve never heard anyone say anything even close to that. I really don’t think that the cost of a meal is something that the vast majority of women even factor in when deciding whether or not to date a person – is a free meal really worth spending hours with someone you don’t like?
Personally, I usually let the guy pay for the first date. I find that most guys want to and fighting over a check is just plain awkward. That and I don’t have expensive tastes – I can’t think of a first date that I’ve been on where the dinner or drinks were more than $20. After the first date, I always either split the check or pay for every other outing, so it evens out pretty quickly. I definitely don’t expect a guy to pay more than I do.
I think that the prostitutive mentality of many women and the male enabler is driving that.
And guy that allows themselves to be exploited like that needs to wake up.
I did split the bill with my boyfriend before we were married…. now that he is my husband he never reaches for his wallet. Just walks away to let me pick up the bill. And, no … I am not in control of his paycheck. we have separate accounts and each may a decent living. Hummmmmm.
It’s a pet peeve of mine when regular guys dating regular girls call women “gold digging bitches” if we have expectations about who pays or money at all. I don’t make-up names for men and call them “tight wad asshats” if they want to split something. So guys, please lay off the name calling just because a girl has a different idea about how money is handled in romance. Because *most* regular guys dating *most* regular girls aren’t meeting up with “gold-digging bitches’ in the first place.
As for paying, it’s nice when a man pays. He is sharing with you. I can not deny that when a man pays for me, that it doesn’t make me feel good. All things being equal in this world, we are still men and women. And there are certain things women will do that will make a man feel more like a man and there are certain things that a man will do that will make a woman feel more like a woman. I don’t want to be treated like his “buddy” with the potential to sleep with. I want to be treated like a woman.
I do however acknowledge that in today’s dating world, people are probably going out on more first dates then 20 years ago pre-internet. That’s why first dates should never be full blown meals. A girl should always offer EVEN if she prefers the man pays; this will give her insight into his own personal money/dating ideas. Which aren’t right or wrong! They just might be different then hers! And that’s why I have a little bit of an issue with this article. I see no issue with a girl wanting to split a check. I also see no issue with a girl prefering the man pay for the first date. These two different women just need to find the man that agrees with her own mentality. Because I can bet you that that small insight into money and the first date will set the tone for how they think money should be handled throughout the rest of the relationship.
Oh and I would also advise girls that if you are meeting up for a first date, go for coffee or drinks, get there a few minutes early, and order and pay for your own so there is no crazy ackwardness in the beginning. How you and him handles the second date is another day.
I know what you mean about the “buddy” thing! it seems like very few guys I’ve dated over the years tried to treat me like, well, I don’t want to say “lady” because that sounds too archaic, but, you know, like a woman who is sexy and interesting, and who they are pursuing like they are a man pursuing a woman. Instead they are always like, “Hey wanna hang out?” “Okay see ya later” or “Wanna f$&k now?” etc.
Even my current significant other is like that, and I love him, but just once I wish he’d talk like an adult instead of a teenage boy. We are in our 40′s!
Yeah, that’s all too true Jill. The very causal ” I want as little responsiblity as possible” mentality that some guys adopt today. So perhaps it’s less about the money and more about changing the social norms so that men have even less responsbility to women. They can treat you like a buddy that they want to bang. My thought is that if a man thinks you are really worth it, he won’t mind paying. But I am a little more traditional sometimes then most.
“I want to be treated like a woman.” So, what do women do (sacrifice) on the first date to “treat him like a man” that they wouldn’t otherwise do when going out to a nice dinner? What tangible thing is she supposed to ‘share with him’ that is comparable to him opening his wallet? Or is this dance all about what the man does to fund making her feel like a woman?
Also, I personally have no issue with a man paying (if they both agree) except when he’s paying because the woman who he’s paying for prefers or expects is yet claims to be a feminist. She ostensibly opposes gender-based inequality but in reality prefers or even expects gender-based inequality when she happens to be on the receiving end.
Well First Eric, let me say that not all women have the same idea on what makes her feel like a woman. Clearly indicated by the author’s own view. So if you don’t like my personal ideas on it, that’s okay. It just means that we wouldn’t be a match. I enjoy when a man I am interested in pays. I can’t change the way it makes me feel. I believe it’s combination of something deep in my nature (that whole “good provider” business) and a combination of being brought up pretty traditionally. But, just because it’s something in my nature, doesn’t mean I take advantage of that and use men for money. It’s the same thing with men and who they are sexually attracted to. You can’t change the fact that you like a certain kind of woman. But just because you do, doesn’t mean you would have the right to use that woman for sex. And just like you don’t like my idea of what a man should or shouldn’t do in paying, I might not like your idea of what you consider beautiful Everyone has different values.
I also am not a firm believer that successful relationships are created by a tit for tat mentality. If either person is always keeping that kind of score, all it is going to do is rack up a lot of anxiety and unhappiness. But I do think fairness should always be applied. Always. And for me, fairness is not always defined by me giving you a penny, and you giving me a penny in return. It sometimes might mean an exchange of different things at different times. And these things might not always be tangible. If she was only going out with a man for a free meal, that is down right wrong. But within my own social network of friends, I know of no woman that does that.
Secondly, I’ve heard that argument a lot about how since women wanted equality in the work place that that somehow means that they can’t want to be treated with traditional romantic roles. Wouldn’t this be a supremely passionless world if we all wanted each other to be treated like adrongenous drones so much that all the same exact expectations and rules in real world equality and work had to be the same expect expectations and rules for dating and mating? I think if you are honest with yourself you would see that your expectations for women in romance are far different then the ones you deal with day to day that you have no romantic interest in. So I see nothing “wrong” in having equality in the real world and work while having certain expectations in relationships that are different. Just as men have the right to do. There are things women do that make men feel like men and I very rarely see men complain about those things in relation to gender equality. You can’t “gender-equality-out” all the things that make us feel like men and women in romantic relationships.
Sorry, Erin, but we don’t want to compete with you from 9-5 and give you special treatment from 5-9.
You want to have your cake and eat it, too. Look around, Erin; life doesn’t work that way.
Erin, I see where you’re coming from and I have no problem with a woman who is a traditionalist and wants to be treated like a lady, having the gentleman serve her by paying and offering chivalry, etc. , as long as she is consistent and doesn’t only pick the traditions that give her the advantage (e.g. the services rendered to provide the ladylike treatment), but then reject the traditions that don’t give her an advantage. So, that would mean that such a woman would also accept/expect the man having the role of head/leader/provider/protector (what chivalry suggests) and the woman having the role of domestic provider and partner/complement of the man.
I personally have no problem with chivalry as long as it’s not the feminist version where they demand equality except when inequality is to their benefit (e.g chivalry, men paying, etc.).
The default position should be that everyone pays their own way, just as one would when going out with friends. I don’t like charging for my dinner company, as I have no means for offering refunds if I’m not my usual charming self.
I often refuse to let a guy I don’t know pay for the first date. I feel like it sets up an expectation on his part. I’ve even had guys hint or explicitly say as much. No thanks.
Why should everyone pay his/her own way? You’re on a date, not hanging out with a buddy. It’s hard for me to take a guy seriously if we split the check. I think it’s important that he shows he wants to truly take you out on those first couple of dates. Then, if you start seeing each other regularly, I’m a fan of taking turns paying for stuff–like I’ll get one check, then the next time he’ll get it. Bottom line–it’s lame to pay separately on one bill when you’re out together. When the barista says “together or separate?” you should always say “together.” Check out justcallher.com for a guy who really knows the score.
Well, it’s hard for me to take a girl seriously if she doesn’t pay my half of the bill. After all, we’re on a date, right?
Please get back in the kitchen, eloise. When you are ready to be equal, you may join the rest of us.
You sound like more of a traditionalist. As I said to Erin, that’s fine as long as you don’t also expect equality otherwise in the relationship. If he’s going to take on the role of provider/protector/head, that places you in the role of domestic provider/complement. In that scenario, it makes perfect sense to expect the man to pay.
Excellent article.
I really can’t fathom the number of women defending the culture of men being expected to pay women’s way as non sexist. If you want to accept sexist behaviour, fine. But don’t come crying when he expects you to keep house, or prioritises his career over yours.
I’m sure it feels fantastic and special to have someone shower you with money, but theres the other side to that role. Its grossly hypocritical to attack male privilege while maintaining female privilege as sacrosanct.