Should men pay for every date until the relationship is official?
Tradition says he pays. Equality says split it. So which is it in the year we're living in?
Tradition says he pays. Equality says split it. So which is it in the year we're living in?
Join the debate to comment
Reading is free. Members pay to post — that's why it stays clean.
Add your commentdated someone for three months before we made it official. in that time i kept a rough mental tally because i couldn't help it. we were almost exactly even. neither of us planned it that way. we just both liked each other and kept wanting to treat the other person. turns out that's the real answer to this whole question
I matched with a guy. We talked for two weeks. I suggested coffee. He said sure. I paid for my own coffee and his. He never offered once, not a reach for his wallet, not a verbal offer, nothing. We went on three more dates exactly the same way. Reader, I married him. Sometimes you just vibe with a person and none of the rest matters.
This is sweet but I feel like you're proving the point that the payment thing is genuinely irrelevant to compatibility and yet we keep arguing about it as if it's the whole ballgame.
I proposed splitting on date two once and the guy literally said "oh so you're one of THOSE women" and I never saw him again. Dodged a missile not just a bullet.
I proposed the third date, told him it was my treat, he argued with me for four minutes about paying. FOUR MINUTES. Over tapas. I never called him again and I feel zero regret.
OR he was raised to believe accepting means he's taking advantage of her and couldn't switch gears fast enough. Not everything is a power move. Sometimes people are just awkward and confused.
Four minutes lmao. Some men would rather die than let a woman feel powerful for thirty seconds.
The most unhinged take I ever heard on this was from a guy who said he always pays because 'you're auditioning for the role of mother of my children so I'm conducting the interview.' Sir. The door.
lol there's always THAT guy. the one who turned a dinner into a casting call. incredible that some of them say this out loud with confidence.
Honest question nobody seems to want to answer: if you insist the man should always pay, do you believe he should also have more decision-making power in the relationship? Because historically those two things were a package deal.
This is a strawman. You can appreciate a traditional gesture without signing up for a 1950s power structure.
Is it a strawman though? Because a lot of the men who loudly insist they should pay also loudly insist they should lead. Just an observation.
Can we stop pretending dating isn't already wildly unequal in other ways that cost women money? Hair, nails, clothing, waxing — I easily spend $200 getting ready for a first date. He spends $15 on a haircut every three weeks. The bill at dinner is almost rounding error at that point.
This grooming cost argument comes up every time and I genuinely don't know how to feel about it. Nobody asked you to spend $200. That's a choice. Same as nobody asks him to pick an expensive restaurant.
Those costs exist because of social pressure that is not gender-neutral and you know it. Saying 'nobody asked you' is technically true and completely beside the point simultaneously.
The whole "he pays to show he values you" logic made me realize how much I'd internalized the idea that my attention had a price tag attached to it. That's not romantic. That's transactional.
Transactional?? Every relationship involves exchange. Time, effort, money, emotional labor. Pretending otherwise is naive.
There's a difference between mutual exchange and one person being the automatic treasurer of the whole courtship process.
I'm a woman and I always insist on splitting, always have. Guess what? The men who got weird about it — who insisted on paying like their ego depended on it — were universally the most controlling partners I ever had. Correlation isn't causation but I'm just saying.
I tried the 'communicate beforehand' approach. Texted 'let's just split it' before date two. He responded 'why, you broke?' I cancelled the date. Worked out great for me, terrible for him.
okay 'why, you broke' is genuinely one of the worst possible responses I can imagine. that man is still out here dating people and that's terrifying
Here's what I've never seen anyone explain: if splitting is emasculating to some men, what does that say about how fragile that definition of masculinity actually is?
Calling something fragile doesn't make it wrong. People have preferences. Not every preference needs to be deconstructed.
"Not every preference needs to be deconstructed" is literally the most status-quo sentence ever written
Men who complain about paying for dates need to factor in the cost of getting ready for a date as a woman. Hair, nails, new outfit, cab so I don't show up sweaty. I've spent $150 before I even walked in the door. The bill at dinner was the cheap part.
That's honestly a fair point but it's also a choice. Nobody required the $150 prep. I go on dates in what I wore to work and nobody has complained yet.
Nobody required it but social pressure on women's appearance is very much real and documented. Acting like it's a fully free personal choice ignores a lot of context.
Unpopular opinion incoming: I genuinely enjoy paying on early dates. Not because I think she owes me anything, not because I want control, but because providing for people I care about — even people I'm just starting to care about — is one of the ways I feel love. Some of us just have that wiring. Stop pathologizing it.
Nobody is pathologizing wanting to pay. We're questioning the expectation that it MUST happen this way and that women who offer are somehow insulting you. Love language is fine. Mandate is the problem.
Nobody's talking about the pressure this puts on men who are genuinely struggling financially. I was bartending three nights a week trying to date in this city. The expectation to pay every time wasn't romantic, it was quietly bankrupting me.
The 'I asked, so I pay' logic is actually the cleanest framework here and nobody ever talks about it. Doesn't matter what gender you are. You extended the invitation, you're the host. Done.
okay but what if she asked AND she makes half what he does. does the math still work the same way? genuine question not rhetorical
I'm a woman who earns significantly more than most men I date. The idea that I should sit back and let someone on a teacher's salary cover my dinner because he has a Y chromosome is embarrassing to me.
This is actually the most underrated point in this whole debate. Income asymmetry cuts both ways and nobody talks about it.
The real answer is just communicate. Text before the date, say "let's split" or "my treat" or "you get this one." Two adults can handle one sentence. The reason nobody does it is because we've made money discussion on dates a taboo and then we're all surprised when it's awkward.
My grandmother paid for half of every date with my grandfather in 1962. People act like splitting is some radical modern invention. It really isn't.
My husband and I went dutch on every single date before we were exclusive. We've been married eleven years. I feel nothing about this.
I stopped expecting men to pay after I realized I was using it as a metric for interest and then convincing myself I was attracted to guys I had nothing in common with because they covered the check confidently. That was a me problem.
You can't ask for 50/50 equality everywhere else and then hand him the bill every Friday. Pick a lane.
Paying for a date and being a good partner are completely orthogonal qualities. I have known generous payers who were terrible boyfriends and guys who always split who were incredibly loving. Stop using the bill as a character test.
hard disagree. how someone handles money with strangers is actually very revealing. not about the amount, about the behavior.
Here's a hot take: the real reason men want to pay isn't tradition or chivalry, it's that paying gives you narrative control of the evening. It's the host's frame. And some men aren't willing to give that up even when they claim it's just about being 'gentlemanly.'
This is such an uncharitable read. My dad paid for every date with my mum for six months. He was also the softest, most conflict-averse person who ever lived. Stopped projecting your experiences onto everyone's fathers please.
Respectfully, the 'he asked, he pays' logic would mean a woman who asks a man out should cover it. I have literally never seen anyone on the traditional side of this debate accept that conclusion. It's not a principle, it's a preference dressed up as a principle.
Actually that IS how I see it and I'm a woman. Whoever initiates covers the first one. I've done it multiple times. The look on their faces is priceless in a good way.
I went on 11 first dates in one year. At an average of maybe $60 a pop that's $660 on people I never saw again. I am not bitter, I'm just doing math.
My rule: first date, I pay. Second date, she pays. Third date, we figure it out together. Three dates in and we already have a little system. That's actually a decent sign for compatibility.
this is cute but what if she wants to pay first to signal interest? your rule still puts men in charge of framing the whole thing
The controlling thing tracks so hard. Every man who's ever made me feel guilty for reaching for my wallet has ended up being weirdly possessive about other things too. At some point the data becomes the data.
Counterpoint to the 'controlling man pays' theory: the most generous, emotionally healthy man I've ever dated always insisted on paying early on. Never once was controlling about anything else. Anecdotes go both directions, people.
Nobody is saying generous men are controlling. The point is that men who get UPSET when you try to split — who make it a whole thing — that's the red flag. Not paying. The reaction to not being allowed to.
I went on a first date with someone who, when the bill came, said 'I'll get this one.' Not 'I'll get this' — 'this ONE.' Signaled so much. Thoughtfulness, future-orientation, generosity without martyrdom. We dated for two years. Still one of my favorite relationships.
The fact that this comment has so many likes tells you everything. People WANT romantic signaling. They want to feel chosen. That's not anti-feminist, it's human. Stop academicizing attraction.
Nobody is academicizing attraction. We're questioning whether one specific gesture should be the load-bearing wall of your romantic evaluation system. Those are different things.
The question shouldn't be who pays, it should be: are you both choosing places you can actually afford? Because a lot of this drama comes from one person picking a restaurant that's outside the other person's budget.
Nobody ever frames it this way and it's the practical answer that actually solves most of the argument.
okay but can we talk about the financial reality for a second. some guys are going on three or four dates a week on apps. at even $40 a pop that's like $600 a month just to MEET people. the math doesn't work if you're not established.
my personal rule: whoever earns more should lean toward paying more. not 100%, not always, just lean. seems obvious but apparently it's controversial to suggest that income should factor into splitting a bill between two people who are supposedly starting to care about each other
This is actually how my husband and I operated before we were married and now operate explicitly. He makes more so he covers more. When I had a good quarter I'd plan something nice and cover it. Equity isn't equality and treating them the same is lazy thinking.
The person who extends the invitation pays. Full stop. This isn't complicated and it's not even a gender question.
okay but societal conditioning means men almost always do the inviting, so that rule still lands the same way lol
I genuinely do not care who pays as long as nobody makes it weird. The worst dates I've been on weren't about money, they were about the twenty-minute silent power struggle over who gets to be the generous one.
Hot take that isn't actually hot: just alternate. You get the first one, I get the next, we don't track it too precisely, we're both generous, it evens out. This is so simple it offends me that we're debating it.
Alternating only works if both people are spending roughly comparable amounts and have roughly comparable incomes. A first-year teacher alternating with a finance bro is not the same situation.
the vibe check during the bill moment is so real. had a date once fake reach for her wallet like she was doing a slow-motion magic trick. absolutely no intention of paying, just wanted to be seen attempting it. we all know the fake reach
Oh the fake reach! I have ended things over the fake reach. At least commit to not paying, don't perform generosity you have zero intention of following through on.
Counter-point: some people genuinely feel awkward and are terrible at the logistics of paying, not performing anything. Social anxiety is real.
The word 'every' in this question is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Every single date? Including the spontaneous Tuesday coffee? The afternoon walk with one ice cream cone? The question breaks down at the edges and the edges are where you actually learn about someone.
I've been in finance for 20 years. You know what I've learned? Watch how someone treats money in low-stakes situations and you will know EVERYTHING about how they'll behave in high-stakes ones. Dating is not exempt from this principle.
Nope. If a man doesn't offer to pay on the first date I'm not seeing him again. Call it old fashioned, I call it knowing what I want.
You're allowed to want that. But then please don't also complain that the gender pay gap exists or that men dominate boardrooms. The entitlements and the grievances travel together.
The truly exhausting thing is that this question will sort itself out naturally in every relationship. What doesn't sort itself out is one partner feeling unseen or pressured. The paying is a symptom. The communication breakdown is the disease.
The real tell is how someone reacts to the OTHER person reaching for the bill. That five seconds tells you everything.
I don't think there's a universal answer here and I'm tired of both sides acting like there is. Traditional people aren't bad people. Egalitarian people aren't bad people. The actual problem is when either side assumes the other shares their framework without asking. Miscommunication is the villain, not a gender.
Centrist answer. I respect it. But I do think norms exist for a reason and 'just communicate' sidesteps why the norm formed in the first place and whether that origin story still holds up in 2024.
My dad paid for every date with my mom for two years before they married. They just celebrated their 41st anniversary. I'm not saying the paying made it work. I'm saying it didn't hurt.
The 'pick a lane' crowd always assumes equality is a monolith lol. You can believe in structural gender equality AND have personal preferences about dating rituals. These things coexist in the same brain. I promise.
That is genuinely one of the most out-of-touch things I've read today, and I've been on the internet for six hours.
He invited me to a $200 dinner I didn't choose and then sulked when I offered to split. Some men want the tradition AND the credit.
Both people should come prepared to pay. What actually happens at the table is a separate conversation.
This whole debate collapses the moment you realize 'official' is also an undefined term. Official after one month? Three? After someone says 'so what are we?' This question has two vague endpoints.
genuinely asking: what does 'official' even do to the payment dynamic? like the day after she's your girlfriend you suddenly expect her to venmo her half? seems like the arbitrary cutoff is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this question
I always pay on early dates and I will keep doing it. It's not about gender, it's that I asked, so I host. Simple.
Is it wrong to choose not to have children just because you don't want to?
110 comments
Netflix's 'Adolescence' shows a teenage boy becoming a killer — did the show actually get modern boyhood right, or did it miss the point entirely?
109 comments
Would you still eat meat if you had to kill the animal yourself?
109 comments
Is judging someone by their height as shallow as judging by their weight?
108 comments