Dating Norms: Do Men Still Pay? (And if so, should they?)

Well it’s a little different in my community. Of course we're both men, but usually who ever ask the person out to dinner, or a movie etc is the one who pays.

If you're not currently single or dating but you were fairly recently, or if you have friends who are, also interested in what you know.

Interesting. Why not split evenly?

I guess you can call me old fashioned.. I think it's awesome for the man to pay for the (first) date and chose the venue.. Maybe I'm romantic?

But, I then think if it goes to a second date, it should be equal and from there on.. Last date was 2 and a half years ago, I be taken now but that's because he made the first date perfect

Everybody pays their own bills at the restaurant and the movies. Full disclosure: I'm single and not currently dating. I'm going by past experiences and by my friend pools. (The time is, say, 1990--2012, and the places cluster around Munich, Germany and New York, NY.)


Nope. I think the mode should be the same as for hang-outs between regular friends.

What I see in the younger group at work (roughly age 21 - 30) is that men ask women out for the first date, and the men pay (and pay and pay). In same sex couples, it's as Anthony described - whoever asks, pays.

Seems weird to me, but that does seem to be the current standard.

It seems very generational here. Next two generations, the standard is sharing costs. Then it goes back to the man/asker paying.

This is not a question of equality or justice. This is a question of economics.

The fact is that men value romantic contact more than women do. Thus it is in men's economic interest to pay in order to make it more likely the woman will accept.

Men that don't accept this will be at a disadvantage (as will women).

Then how do you explain the generational differences ehBeth describes? The genetic differences between men and women don't change that fast, and neither did the economics.

That's easy to explain in several ways. First of all the cohort of people that Ehbeth (or anyone else, nothing against Ehbeth) knows is rather limited and certainly has selection bias. Second we are relying on Ehbeth's perception of this cohort which has the obvious filters of any single reporter. Third there are age differences. Anyone's behavior will be different when they are 20 than it will be when they are 40. And, there is another big selection bias; people who have married and stayed married don't count in this sample.

I would be interested to know if there is any valid studies that have said this. I googled a bit and was unable to find any.

Pete's idea is interesting to me. I have recently started dating again after a long bout of monogamy. I have never been asked out for a first date. I wonder on what percentage of first dates it is the woman who asks. Even in this century I bet this number is very small.

I question this.

I think it might be arguable that men have, in aggregate, a higher sex drive than women. But a) there are a lot of variations there, and b) I think women place just as much or more of a premium on having a romantic partner of some sort.

Personally, I think that having the man pay is holdover from when a man's earning potential had a lot to do with his suitability as a husband. Dating was a way for him to demonstrate some of his wealth, as well as other more personal attributes.

Plus it was just much more likely that the guy would have disposable income and a means of transportation, at all.

Then once it was entrenched, it works out pretty well for women and it's not uncommon enough that men are willing to take the social/romantic risk of being the guy who won't pay.

Now, I think it makes a lot more sense for everything to be split equally.

I do get the person-who-asks-pays thing. If it's not going to be split equally, that makes the most sense I guess. As in, if I'm going to take someone on an expensive dolphin-watching tour (say), I'd rather just say "my treat" than "Let's go on this fun thing that will expensive even if split in half -- hope you can afford it!"

I think that should be gender-neutral though, including that if the woman asks the guy out on an expensive date, she should pay.

Personally, I really disliked the sense of obligation that I had if my date paid. I think there were a few situations where that came up, and I refused (paid my half even though the guy expected to pay). I think they were happy about it though, not offended.

I've asked out guys several times. I didn't really "date" per se (I can think of one official date, which was with a guy I didn't like at all who asked me out after I'd made a vow that if I was so grumpy about being single, I had to start saying "yes" to guys who asked me out), but I was the first to verbally express interest several times.

How about your allegation that men value romantic feelings more than women do? Have you got peer-reviewed research to support that, or is that also just your subjective, selection-biased, seat-of-the-pants perspective?

The most honest type of romantic relationship is where money is exchanged directly for sex. The market pretty clearly values women.

Me neither. There is no such thing as an "official" date in Germany. There are friendly outings in pubs, cinemas, and the like. But people don't agree in advance whether they are friendly or more-than-friend-ly. The more-than-friendly-ness happens when it happens, or not.

I am looking at this economically. What "makes sense" doesn't really matter to me as a man (nor should it matter economically to women). I am hurting myself if I don't act in a way that benefits me.

I am going to use the words "goal" and "success" without any specifics. Whether the goal is a night of sex, a short term romance without commitment or a long term monogamous relationship doesn't matter economically.

A man is most likely to have success in his dating life by broadening his number possible partners. There are desirable women who will prefer a man who pays for dinner for them. A man who will not pay for dinner is at a disadvantage particularly when their are competitors who are willing to pay.

So it is foolish for a man not to pay for dinner (whatever his goal is).

Likewise if men are willing to give something of economic value (i.e. paying for dinner) for their company, it is economically foolish for women not to accept. They are losing something of value.

The market works this way for a reason.

Thomas,

I am curious about the other economic tokens of affection in Germany once a romance starts. Are purchases of things like flowers, chocolates and jewelry exchanged? Is the exchange equal?

I now have a partner, we don’t live together so now we do split everything when we go out because we are in a relationship and no longer dating, but when we were dating we both just expected whom ever asked one out for the evening automatically foot the bill.

Yes they are exchanged. (No jewelry though, nothing of great commercial value.) While it's considered rude to keep score, the exchanges do tend to be roughly equal.