I was recently listening to a speaker take questions and a woman stood up to give her inquiry. She asked who should pay on a date and shared her own opinion when recalling having told her partner of five months, “you’re the gentleman here; you’re supposed to pay”, after he asked for them to go half and half. This is not the first I have heard of this viewpoint, alongside many other concepts of dating etiquette, but no other instance has struck me as hard as this woman’s stance on who should pay. I found it unreasonable, selfish, and inconsiderate on her part to have the audacity to tell her partner he had to pay for her on every occasion they went out.
One of the most flawed reasons is when people cite historical social norms as basis for continuing to uphold this ridiculous expectation. It is widely known that females have not always had the same opportunities as males in America. Just a little under a century ago, women could not cast votes. Havard opened in 1636, but women were not admitted into colleges until 200 years had passed. More related to the topic at hand, women were restricted in the fields available to them due to misogynistic beliefs, educational requirements, and social expectations. Furthermore, in 1970, women statistically received 45 percent less pay than men in the same jobs.
Now, why have I mentioned all these statistics when discussing dating culture, specifically regarding the argument of who must pay? Because women have not always had the same income as men, of course it was previously expected that men pay for taking their partner out; females most likely could not afford it. The position females found themselves in a century ago is vastly different than where we find ourselves today. Women are running their own businesses, encouraging the pursuit of degrees in science and math fields, and hold more power than they have in the past. The circumstances of the past pushed for certain behaviors that are now unable to be backed by the same reasoning.
Secondly, the fact that some people are unyielding in spending their money on their partner is selfish. When someone offers to pay for something for me, I make sure not to let the balance go too high because I know my money is worth just as much as theirs in the same economy. To spend an amount I myself wouldn’t be comfortable putting down is, in my opinion, to take advantage of someone’s kindness. I agree that whoever asks for the date in the initial stage of seeing someone is the one that should pay, but that responsibility shifts. At some point you should be making the conscious decision to go out with your partner because you want to spend time with them, you value them as a person, and you know you enjoy their company; it should no longer be a test drive. To perpetuate this outdated expectation thereafter is to deem your time worth more than your partners.
Finally, I see it as inconsiderate to expect your partner to pay every time you go out together. Money is many times the reason for marital stress and for good reason too: people never feel they have enough. In knowing this, how can someone not realize and take into consideration the amount their partner would end up spending on them if only the boyfriend paid? If you feel you yourself don’t have the funds to ‘spot the check’ and your partner says they will take care of it, that is true consideration. When someone resolves that issue standing in your way of spending time together, that means that money is nowhere near as important as seeing you. That depth of love and desire should go both ways.