To Pay or Not to Pay- That is the Question

Guest Author - Patrick P - Single, 30-something, Marketing Rep and a long-time friend of Single in the City.

While recently out to dinner with a platonic girlfriend of mine (yes, it’s possible for men to have these which shocks even me sometimes), we began musing over some of our recent dating experiences. She immediately led with the latest adventure concerning an enterprising young fellow who, when the bill arrived, uttered the opportunity-for-sex-killing line: "Now you owe $4 for the pan bread, $8 for the shiraz…" That elicited a hardy laugh from me but also sparked a prolonged debate regarding the responsibility to pay on a date and who it belongs to. The heart of the debate is leaving young women disheartened and young men confused and in a lot of cases, broke. Who can blame them in this age of ultra-feminism and metrosexuality? The roles for men and women ain’t what they used to be. It’s a debate that you will all be faced with frequently because your involvement with Single in the City will most likely have you dating a lot. Fast forward to the conclusion of the debate where my position was: Paying on dates will not get men laid. Her position: Failure to pay on dates will not get men laid. And you know what? We were both right. To find out how we got there we need a brief glimpse into the dating scene of yesteryear with some consideration given to history, sociology and yes, even biology.

If you posed this issue to our mothers and grandmothers, it will be a given that a man should always pay. Most men know that the expectation to pay looms over every date and in most cultures, especially European ones, you may as well hand over your genitalia if you let a woman shell out coin. However, this isn’t Europe and this isn’t the generation of our mothers and grandmothers. You really can’t compare the dating scenes then and now because… there wasn’t a dating scene until recent decades. There was no such thing as recreationally dating beyond high school. With few exceptions, singles courted and did so with the end goal being marriage by the time their early 20’s rolled around. Men only had to pay for one or at most a couple of women. If women had jobs, they were waitresses and secretaries or grossly underpaid while holding the same job title as men predominantly held. Paying for dinners, trips and expensive gifts were investments that men expected to see a return on- and you know the kind of return I’m talking about. For a visual example of these good ol’ days, treat yourself to an episode of the hit TV show, Mad Men. Fast forward to our modern age- I understand that we still have a ways to go when it comes to pay equity in this country but we’ve come a helluva long way. By and large, there isn’t any level of education or income a woman can’t attain anymore. With almost 50% of modern marriages ending in divorce, the resulting ‘second wave’ of dating that follows comes on the heels of women often receiving the lion’s share of whatever settlement there is. Is it any wonder then that men are crying foul when face-to-face with women who are on the surface liberated, progressive, ‘Miss Independent’ but decide to get all traditional when the bill arrives?

Although I’m a guy and my bias is obviously shining through, I’d like to state for the record that I’m not against a man paying on dates. In fact, I feel we should pay more often than our female counterparts. This is because, biologically, women are hard wired to be attracted to men who are strong, capable, and know how to provide. If you’re stupid rich and you earn 10 times more in one second than what the restaurant bill is worth, pay to your heart’s content. I don’t imagine that Donald Trump looks over to wife Millania after a night at a Manhattan haute couture restaurant and says: "This one’s on you". But gifts and dinners are a privilege and a reward that comes once a relationship is established. Dating is a feeling out (and feeling ‘up’) process where you determine if the other is worth spending your precious time and money on. By blowing your wad- ahem, cash wad- too early, men send out the signal that they’re like every other schmuck out there that have to buy attraction because they have little else to offer. By accepting and expecting payment with no attempt at a contribution, women give off the signal that they’re needy and dependent, having to rely on a man to take care of them. Both types may attract a mate of some form, but often not the quality type they’re looking for.

To avoid the conflict to begin with, learn the art of the ‘mini-date’- dates that require little or no money. These ‘mini-dates’, besides being more economical, provide more opportunity for fun and interaction and are less sterile than your typical dinner-and-a-movie. Starbuck’s, ice skating, zoos, nature walks, billiards, bowling, are just a few examples. A woman’s desire for a man to take charge, show some creativity and give her some custom tailored attention far outweighs her desire to have him pick up the tab. If you’re going to do dinner-and-a-movie, I don’t see anything wrong with the woman occasionally picking up the lesser of the two which is most likely the movie.

As we look behind to Valentine’s Day, and you’re not yet with that ‘special’ someone, give the ‘mini-date’ a shot. I can assure you that your black book and your pocket book will both be much heavier.

Comments

[Patrick Power]

Well said C. There certainly is something to be said for chivalry and I can assure it is not completely dead. I stated in my blog that a man should take the lead in the paying department because there is nothing more unattractive than being cheap. But there is a difference between being cheap and being a chump, because while cheapness is unattractive so is attempting to build attraction by trying to buy it. The key for menis to be discerning on when and whomto lavish the extras and for women to never take those extras for granted.

Patrick