My take on who pays for a date

The question of who should pay when a heterosexual male/female pair go on a date together is one that numerous dating sites, bloggers, experts, etc have tackled.

Too many of them go for the simple, "The man pays". Sometimes this is framed as "men want to show off that they can support you" bullshit (excuse me, did the past 50 years of feminism not happen or something?) and the claim seems always to be that it is a sign of disinterest if he doesn't want to impress the woman he's dating with the size of his penis-substitute wallet, and that the money he puts in is somehow a sign of his "investment" in a relationship developing. Sometimes, it's just described as a "romance-killer" by female writers if the man doesn't want to pay.

Personally, I don't see what's so romantic about a man saying "I want to buy sex with you, using barter-trade of goods-in-kind, such as X number of meals". That's the message that I get when a woman expects me to buy everything on a date! Or, if it's not sex, then it's him saying, "I want to buy your love". Still not a classic of the romantic mood-setters, if you ask me.

And, of course, it is a complete romance-killer for me if she expects me to pay for everything, because that says to me that she puts a price on her sexuality. That says that she does not want a relationship with me, but is willing to be bought and will put up with my amorous intentions (and/or having sex with me) as long as she can make a profit from it. Wow, that's sooooo sexy (NOT!) I want to be with someone who wants to be with me. I don't want to be with someone who has to be bribed to like me.

I have two simple rules:

1. Whoever spent least travelling to get to the date, pays.
2. Where it's more-or-less even, then whoever "sponsored" the date (that is, they chose the place and/or time) pays.

On travelling, it's about keeping costs fair. If one person already shells out a goodly sum just to get to see you, then expecting them to pay for food, movie tickets, whatever as well seems a bit churlish, don't you think?

On who sets up the date, it's about expectations. If someone wants to invite me to an expensive restaurant, then that's their business and their money they have to spend, but I would certainly resent being expected to pay my way at a place I can't afford. If it's your choice of venue, and your assessment of what a reasonable cost should be, then you should pay. If your dating partner perhaps is on a significantly smaller income than yours, then it is only going to embarrass them if you expect them to pay for a date that you set up based on what your budget for a date would be. Alternatively, you put them in the position of having to explain why they can't go on that particular date, and that is also rarely a sexy situation (either it makes you feel unwanted, or it makes them feel inadequate, or both). And seriously: if income is a big issue for you, then get that cleared up before you even start thinking about asking someone out on a date. As regular readers will know, for me, a potential partner having income as a priority is a deal-breaker. If their having a low income is a deal-breaker for you, then check it out before you embarrass someone by demanding they pay for a meal that costs a week's food budget or something! You're saving both yourself and them a lot of time and heartache, surely?

In general, I am against a blanket "who is best able to pay" situation, becuase if there is an income imbalance, then that almost always means one person ends up paying all the time. That can often cause power imbalances of an uncomfortable sort (and not the fun, BDSM-y sort), with one person feeling they are being taken advantage of, and/or the other person feeling as though they are being "bought" or "kept". It is better to be able to maintain one's self-respect by saying every so often, "this is my date that I arranged, and I will entertain you in my way". It may mean choosing cheap options (such as making a picnic or going out sightseeing), but as long as effort and thought go into it, it says, "I have the ability to stand on my own two feet" as well as "I care and want to make you happy". I like to think that for a wealthier partner, the change of pace might (if there's any chance of a relationship there at all) be a pleasant variation from the high-cost, high life dates that zie would arrange. It may still be that the high-income partner pays for most dates, simply because zie has the budget to arrange them, but as long as there is some level of reciprocation I think it helps to maintain the relationship on an equal footing. There is still a potential for "I spend so much on him/her and she/he spends so little on me" to cause problems, so if there are inequalities of income then it's important to be aware of whether these types of feelings are a part of your own make up (or theirs), and decide whether or not you can deal with them. That's why I won't necessarily call it shallow if someone wants to date people only within a certain range of their own income - it's still a deal-breaker for me, but I don't judge people for that decision.

So there you have it: if you want to date me, then you have to be happy to pay every time you a) invite me to your neck of the woods instead of coming to mine or b) set up the date. It's a really good idea to do these at least a couple of times, so that I know that you're interested in me and not my wallet (although my wallet is a lot thinner than most, so if you want money you picked the wrong horse). If you find it a romance-killer to be asked to pay your way, then travel to see me, or else always let me pick the date (and expect a date that's within my budget, not yours!)

And oh yeah, I really would be okay with dating a whore, as long as it was about her pleasure, and not business. But whatever your profession, don't make a date with me turn into you whoring yourself by your expecting me to pay to "win" your love and/or sex with you, mkay? Whores and whoring can be perfectly fine people and activities, but people who pretend they're not (and who think being called a whore is an insult!) when really they are just engaged in the socially-accepted version (via dating and marriage)? Those people disgust me.