This letter from a reader is about a subject that every man and woman face.
"It's [name withheld], one of your flirt students and big fan. I have a question, it's about an old issue, still
not clear for me and many women (as I saw on the forum).
We talk a lot about this, but we still don't know - who pays after all?
"I've been out on dates, at
restaurants or bars and some men expected me to split the bill with them! Some even said it directly. Some did not say it,
but when I offered to go dutch, they accepted, like it was normal.
"I wonder, should a woman always offer to pay half
at a restaurant? Are there any rules for a first date, second date and for a serious relationship?
"What is your personal
opinion about this? How should a woman behave with a man who asks you to pay your share? Thank you, my warm regards."
Great question. This is my personal opinion. I say that the man usually pays during the initial dating stages. A man
who expected me to split the first date would leave me cold - I would consider him a cheapskate. Cheapskates are the biggest
turn-off of all.
I feel there is a definite connection between a man's views on this and what kind of lover he would be. It's
not about techniques. I hate it when people view sex as a set of techniques. (I personally have a Christian viewpoint
about whether sex takes place before or after marriage, though of course I do not expect the majority of readers to share
that view and neither did I in the past.)
The point is, does being a cheapskate make a guy a lousy lover? Yes, to
me it does.
If a guy wanted to count pennies so much that he wanted my forty bucks as a matter of principle, it would
color my whole view of him - I would be turned off. I'd see him as a guy who would spend our lives making sure that everything
was "equitable" - like an accountant of emotion. Where is the passion in that?
Now here's the important part - if
a real relationship happened (meaning commitment and if I felt secure with him - and was madly in love with him - not in that
order), I most certainly would be lavishing my man with plenty of things, monetarily and otherwise. I would insist on treating
him frequently. I would be as generous as possible. Nothing would be considered too much (within what I could afford) and
I would want him to have the best. So this is not about gold-digging or expecting the man to pay for everything forever.
If a man does not have any money at all to spare, then he can just be up front about it, and insist on doing
things which don't cost a lot. Nothing is more romantic than taking a walk, and a woman will always remember the man who wants
to go on a walk with her on a first date because very few do.
I guess it all comes down to the traditional idea that man pursues woman in the beginning until the relationship
is established. This seems to be what produces the strongest and most fulfilling relationships.
My official policy once again is: the man pays for the first few dates. When the relationship becomes
solid or lengthy, then the woman begins to reciprocate, including paying for some of the dates - but to split it down the
middle and to tabulate who is spending what is a total turn-off that destroys passion.
And guys, we want to hear what you think.
Please sign the guestbook above to share your opinion.