The ‘Dutch Oven’ of Dating

Why are we so concerned with a person’s genitalia when determining who should pay for a date?

Let me get this out of the way, right upfront…

I’m not a dating expert, and I’m currently single. I’m also autistic and homosexual. So I pick up on very subtle nuances and microaggressions that many neurotypical and heterosexual people are unable to detect.

About a decade ago, I went out on a lunch date with another gay dude whom I’d met through an online dating service. We had a really nice conversation during our meal. However, once the check arrived, there was sort of an awkward long silence. Neither of us knew who was “supposed to” pay for our meal.

Part of this was due to how we’d sort of mutually agreed to the lunch date. There wasn’t one of us who had explicitly “pursued” the other one.

Eventually, we each pulled out our wallets, and we paid in cash for our own percentages of our lunch order.

There was no second date. I’m not sure whether it was due to this “awkward moment” — or if we just instinctively sensed we weren’t a good match.

This is why, as a rule-of-thumb, I favor the policy of “Going Dutch.” Each person pays their own way, unless other arrangements have been made. Or, unless somebody spontaneously decides to treat the entire table.

What’s Appropriate vs. What’s Expected

Here’s my simple formula for answering the question of “Who pays?”

If you proactively ask someone out on a date, you should go into the date expecting to pay for both yourself and them. Regardless of genitalia.

If you get asked out on a date, you should go into the date hypothetically prepared to pay for exactly your share. However, if the person who invited you takes control and foots the bill (as they should, based on general etiquette), then you should allow them to treat you — since they were the one who initiated the date.

If you go out on a two-person date or a group date where the idea for the outing was just casually suggested (and both/all parties said, “Sure, that’d be fun!”) — then, again, you should go into it prepared to pay for exactly your share of the meal and expenses. If one person, for whatever reason, decides to treat EVERYONE…let them! But don’t take advantage of their nice gesture by expecting it to become a recurring habit of theirs.

Of course, part of the stress over the question of “Who pays?” will stem from the underlying stigma over whether your dinner companion is platonic or potentially romantic.

If it’s the former, people might take turns paying — or split the check right down the middle. Or “Go Dutch,” where everyone pays for whatever they specifically ordered for themselves.

If it’s the latter, both people are probably silently and mentally running scenarios in their minds. When they see the possibility of future dates happening, they may become self-conscious in their behavior.

Am I being too stingy?

Am I being generous enough?

Am I being presumptuous?

Am I being sexist?

Am I playing mind games with this person?

Am I reasonable in my expectations for this person?

Am I sounding tactless if I bring up the question of “Who pays?”

Even as much as we pat ourselves on the back for thinking we’re a modern and progressive society, there still seems to be this default expectation floating around in the zeitgeist that men should pay for women whenever they’re out on a date. Some people insist this should be the standard regardless of who originally extended the invitation or who actually earns more money.

So let’s deconstruct such reductionism.

Why Do Women Demand It?

There are common rules-of-thumb we keep hearing, when folks perform their mental gymnastics attempting to justify the Men-Should-Always-Foot-The-Bill philosophy.

Fallacy A: Women spend a great deal of money on clothing, makeup, and hygienic grooming to make themselves look nice for their male dinner companions. So it “evens out” when he picks up the check for both of them.

My rebuttal: Is he asking you to go the extra mile to beautify yourself in preparation for the date? Or are you assuming that’s what he wants from you, just because he has a penis? If he doesn’t want to pursue a relationship with you based on how he doesn’t find you “pretty enough” on your first date — then is he really someone who is worth your time and energy? What makes you think his superficiality would make for a long-lasting romance or marriage?

Fallacy B: Women earn less than men, on average. Therefore, a man paying for the entirety of the bill (at least for the first few dates) is in the spirit of equity-based feminism.

My rebuttal: Do you and your dinner companion compare tax returns before you go out on your first date? How much do you know about his financial circumstances or hardships? He obviously doesn’t know about all of yours, right? Therefore, if you truly value intersectional feminism, you won’t make blatant assumptions about your date’s bank account until you actually get to know each other better.

Fallacy C: Men are cheap if they won’t pay for the date. They don’t understand the value of chivalry.

My rebuttal: We live in the 21st Century. Why does “chivalry” need to be gender-specific? It’s gaslighting to tell a man he is “cheap” because he won’t automatically pay for you. He could just as easily accuse you of being “cheap” for being unwilling to pick up the check. Unless he specifically asked you out (in which case, it’s proper etiquette that he pays for you both), then he is under no obligation to subsidize your companionship.

Fallacy D: If a man values a woman’s company, he should be willing to pay for her time and attention.

My rebuttal: This implies that the woman is somehow inherently more “valuable” within a heterosexual relationship. If you truly want an equal partnership with someone — where he values your views and emotions, and you value his — then you can’t come at it from a standpoint of yourself being the one who “brings more to the table” by default. That’s only setting up a relationship for failure.

Furthermore, most of these discussions tend to become extremely heterosexist and heteronormative. When two men or two women are going out on a first date, “experts” will recommend that LGBT+ daters simply split the check right down the middle…or “Go Dutch.”

Why should there be one standard for opposite-sex couples but an entirely separate standard for same-sex couples?

Why Do Men Go Along With It?

It’s clear that, from a very early age, both men and women are conditioned to adhere to gender roles. Let’s look at why many men succumb to the self-loathing misandry of letting themselves become “human ATM machines.”

Writing for CNN Business, Heather Long analyzed a set of 2015 dating research survey results showing that many men feel guilt over the notion of being paid for by women whom they are dating. This is due to “benevolent sexism,” which impels heterosexual men to do a majority of the inviting, in the first place.

Other men, observes Long, view their role of paying for the date as a function of “chivalry.” Yet other male daters will offer to pay as a way to signal that they are genuinely interested in their female companions. However, Long noticed a trend amongst respondents from younger generations (Millennials and Zoomers) where footing-the-bill norms are gradually changing as a dating couple embarks upon its second, third, and fourth dates. It appears that an increasing number of forward-thinking male daters from Gen Y and Gen Z are insisting that their female counterparts pay for expenses more often.

The Huffington Post’s Rebecca Adams describes “the wallet-fake,” a performative ritual where many women test out signals by offering to pay for a portion of the bill on a first date — but, secretly, they want the man to fully pay for at least the first couple of dates. Other women may view this dance as a step backward for feminism, equality, and self-sufficiency if the default expectation becomes for men to always pay.

And then there are the men who advise their fellow dudes to surrender to traditionalism. Business Insider’s Dennis Green sets up a framework where he encourages men to always just assume they’ll be paying on a first date — but to defer to whatever the woman wants to do. In other words: if she offers to pay, let her. Yet, in the same breath, Green tells same-sex couples that we should just split the check right down the middle.

Dating coach Evan Marc Katz agrees with Green’s position that a man should be deferential to whatever the woman whom he’s dating wants to do. As he words it:

Yeah, being a guy isn’t always the most rewarding thing in the world. But what are you gonna do? I’ve stopped wondering about what’s “fair” and have decided to embrace the system I’ve inherited. In this system, a guy pays unquestionably, and if a woman offers to pay, he is supposed to say no. At least on the first few dates. Or as long as she’s being courted. Or maybe always. It depends on the woman. We can never know unless we let down our guard and allow her to pick up a check…that’s the precedent that was established way before you were born. Don’t fight it, just do it with a smile, ’cause if you don’t, you ain’t getting another date.

Katz goes on to say that men should embrace the opportunity to feel good about providing; and, he does qualify his opinion by encouraging women to be sympathetic to men who earn significantly less than them, individually.

Sure, Evan… *facepalm*

Obviously, I reject what both Katz and Green are saying. Unless both members of a couple are hard-core traditionalists, I don’t see what good comes out of expecting your first date to conform to rigid expectations based on their physiology or anatomy per se.

Isn’t such heteronormativity the reason why same-sex marriage used to be illegal everywhere?

Dating coach Matthew Hussey sums it up perfectly. He calls out women who expect for men to pay them for their time:

Hussey has a practical and healthy perspective on relationships. If one member of a couple harbors entitlement or learned helplessness, it doesn’t bode well for their long-term chemistry.

If you want to be tied to a romantic partner who walks you around with a leash tethering your neck, that’s fine for you. Personally, for me, it’s “Been There, Done That.”

What About Group Excursions?

And then there are situations where you might be going out to brunch or dinner with a large group of friends, colleagues, or acquaintances.

How do we navigate these social dynamics?

Gothamist’s Nell Casey believes that everyone should split a “group check” evenly, no matter what they individually order. She rationalizes that your friends should be worth your money, it balances out in the long run, and it earns you social capital. Casey also recommends that people bring paper cash bills with them on group outings, as it can be laborious and exasperating for wait staff who have to run multiple credit cards from different people at the same table.

I disagree with Casey. If I go out with a group, I don’t expect anyone to subsidize my meal and beverage/alcohol choices — or vice versa. If your willingness to be my friend depends so deeply on how much of your food I agree to pay for…then I’m not so sure I *want* you as my friend.

Forbes writer Maggie McGrath offers some alternatives. If the dinner party wishes to avoid the hassle of dividing the bill into separate checks (due to the extraneous process of running multiple people’s credit cards), then one person could put it on their credit card while everyone else individually compensates their shares to the designated “creditor” through Venmo. Or, even in line with Casey’s advice: bring plenty of $1 and $5 bills, so you can cover the items you ordered along with your contribution to the gratuity.

Again, the overriding trend — from my perspective — is a default assumption that I’ll be paying for my own portion of whatever I’ve ordered. That applies no matter who I’m with or where we are. The exception would be if somebody else specifically made it clear, ahead of time, that they’d be footing the entire bill as a treat.

If it’s a date, you might argue that calculating exactly how much I owe will “take the romance out of it.” But, for me, part of a hypothetical romance is the desire to be on an equal footing with my boyfriend or husband.

When having these “Who pays?” discussions, let’s also take into account that one or both members of a prospective couple might be nonbinary. Both the Centennial/Zoomer and Alpha/Coronial generations seem very in tune with this reality. I’d think that bodes well for the future of gender relations in the forthcoming decades…as Gen Z and Gen AA, respectively, help to steer us there.

If you’re using monetary values to denote the level of affection your romantic partner shows you — that isn’t romance. It’s a business transaction.

And, just like in the business world…don’t be surprised if your “colleague” cuts you off, once your demands become vain and unreasonable.