Her Highness Cinnamon asked for more about paying date costs. What about gray areas? Complicated financial situations? The only right answers are what’s right for the people involved. Exceptions and gray areas always exist and people do what’s in their best interest. Whether that’s the best for their relationship may become questionable when examined under the microscope of their respective natures.
Our basic natures are hardwired in ways that often rise up to haunt our decisions. Example: She pays for dinner and he never calls again. Or, he pays, calls her, and she never answers. Such risk can’t be eliminated, but knowing more about how the sexes are born differently makes it easier to minimize risk, develop compatibility, and foster continuing relationships. All of which are of much greater interest to women than men.
Consequently, my analysis of human nature endorses men paying all dating costs except for the cost of her preparation. Analysis reveals how people behave according to the default conditions they are born with and before they overwrite their hearts with contrary lessons learned in life. Each person must figure out what’s best for them at the time, place, and date. Hopefully in what follows, women will figure out ways for them personally to reduce the risk of losing candidates before relationships develop.
College men either started or refined the art. Men propagandize women into accepting that men take all the risk when they pay. However, men don’t explain their measure of risk, which is that the guy pays but gets no sex. IOW, men twist social argument to imply that dating is prostitution in action and men are unwilling to pay. The risk is too high; he might not score the first date. If he does score and goes back, they don’t date but hang out and share costs. Propagandized females ignore their hearts. They fall for the scam. They lose the ability to earn masculine respect from which manly love arises. They lose some ability to be likeable enough for men to want to proceed into the future with them.
So, let’s examine the motivational forces that linger in the background of dating.
- Men are normally the bigger risk takers. However, not with dating. Women crave dates to find mates and accept a much greater risk than men. It attests to natural female courage to date while not fully understanding the nature of men.
- Both sexes make easy whatever they have in mind as personal objectives. He looks short range and present oriented for results to either bed her or get a return date. She plans to explore the long range and his potential; she looks for promise of an extended relationship. He’s looking to sell, she’s looking to buy. Buyers don’t pay until they’re sold on seller’s product. Men hide their product by indirectly implying and perhaps encouraging women to think that marriage is behind a door that she can open under appropriate conditions that she must demystify. She can’t open a door to see what she gets until she yields sex, and even then he chooses the door. That’s when she discovers that his product is either 1) prospect of serious commitment and extended relationship, 2) her new role as booty, or 3) she’s dumped. Women should not pay to face three closed doors, when the odds are 2-1 against her—and she still has to morph 1) into marriage.
- Mutual motivation: While each date partner seeks to impress the other favorably, they do so while peeking through opposite sides of the same keyhole. He looks for sex and she for lures or links to marriage. It breeds insincerity from the get-go. Who is more likely to be insincere? The short-range or long-range thinker? I presume the short but that’s another story. For the opportunity to be insincere more easily than women, men should pay for the advantage. It’s not equality, it’s fairness. And men standup for fairness as diligently as women standup for equality.
- Their apparent reason for dating is to have a good time introducing themselves and exploring each other’s personality and character in face-to-face encounters. All done with having fun as the common denominator. But men expect and become the seller on dates. They market the promise of good togetherness, sell themselves as prime leaders, and choose venues and arrangements as marketing tools; as is the seller’s duty. Why should she pay seller’s expenses before she decides to buy what he’s selling.
- Selling is a process and not a result. Women are processors and do well at it. Men are producers and try to make processes more efficient. Which means that he changes over a series of dates with one woman; it’s an ‘admin cost’. She shouldn’t pay for the seller’s privilege to change his approach.
- His natural male purpose for dating is to check her out for access to sex and determine her likeability for further pursuit. IOW, his nature pushes him to uncover her weaknesses with the least expenditure of time, effort, and money. That puts a burden on him to initiate and to do so efficiently for his own sake, but it has marginal or zero benefit for her. He leads, subsumes his dominance into charm, and it denies her reasonable room to explore him except for what he chooses to reveal. He’s far more privileged for gaining knowledge about her; she’s limited for gaining knowledge about him. The proof is also in this pudding: She never knows if he will call again, but he’s not bothered that way. Therefore, he should pay for the privilege of exploring who she is and can be in his life. He pans for gold; she pays to make herself look golden just for him. Consequently, he should absorb responsibility to pay for the privilege of her presence on a date.
- Her natural female purpose is to help him determine just how worthy she is as potential girlfriend and how her potential for mating is superb.Her nature guides her to avoid bragging and to proceed more passively, which adds to his burden to initiate and then weigh her responses. He’s in the driver’s seat, she’s the passenger. If she proactively tries to convince him of her worth in his life, it turns him off. It begs the question, why should she pay when her options are limited to being the passive date? She has to accept what he gives. He judges her by what he uncovers. She judges him by what he discloses. As the passive participant, why should she pay when she is so limited in what she can accomplish or uncover about him—all of it being relative to how simply the same thing works to his advantage.
- Women primarily have fun on dates but it isn’t reusable. They learn little too, because sellers do the talking and shape the exchange of knowledge. Men primarily gain knowledge, which is reusable as he ponders future dates with the same woman. Men should pay for advantage gained.
- This would work to a woman’s disadvantage, but it’s an interesting thought. Why don’t women disclose how much they pay to prepare for a date? Because they sense in their heart of hearts that it’s the wrong thing to do. That relationships don’t develop well when money is brought into the equation. Better to develop the relationship and then deal with money issues after cooperative teamwork and hopefully devoted connections have been brought together out of romance.
In the final sweep up of such things, a woman dresses up at significant expense. She provides benefit to a date’s eyes, pleasure, and reputation for dating someone who thinks enough of him to dress well. After all, we dress according to the importance of the event in our lives. OTOH, men generate similar effect for their dates by spending on them. Her girlfriends measure her importance by how her dates spend on her. Never equal, but it’s highly fair when they both spend to make themselves look good and thereby impress the other. He pays date expenses, his duty. She pays preparation expenses, her duty. In both cases, the duty to impress, please, and focus their attention on each other as unique makes dating pleasurable. More so when they exploit their different natures rather than depending on lessons learned earlier in their lives.