Ladies, Don't Pay

Amy and John discuss "going Dutch"

By Amy Kean and John D. Schwartz

JOHN:  I just read the latest entry on our sister blog "Live and Let Date" by Liza Persky entitled "Recession Dating" and, as a man, I feel compelled to toss in my two cents. So here goes: MEN SHOULD PAY ON DATES--ALWAYS! Listen, recession or not, if a man is interested in a woman, he WANTS to pay for her. It's just that simple. All you feminists out there, and all you sensible women who believe in logic and fairness, you're missing the whole point. When any man is truly excited about a woman, he wants to impress her, and to present himself as a perfect gentleman. He wants to feel like a man. So, believe it or not, when he's really interested, he ENJOYS paying for her. Get it?

Now I understand that many women feel like they want to show how "modern" and independent they are, so they offer to pay half of the bill, as a polite courtesy. Fine. But let me just warn you that, if the guy takes you up on that offer, he's not interested.

By the same token, when a woman knows for sure that she's not interested in a guy, she should insist on paying her share to avoid any confusion or awkwardness about the nature of the relationship. (Because let's face it, some guys are creeps.)

So there you have it; an offer to "go Dutch" is the perfect litmus test to determine whether there should be another date. If the guy accepts, he's not interested. If the woman insists, she's not interested.  

"Going Dutch" means it's over.

AMY:  Is my husband well-trained or what? From our first amazing, magical date--way, way back when we were in college--I can honestly say I've never even offered to contribute one penny towards our dates. It just never occurred to me. If John asked me out--which he always did because it was never my policy to ask guys out--it was understood that he'd always pay for both of us. It didn't matter if it was an expensive steak dinner, or a couple of hot dogs at a baseball game, John always paid. He's a proper old-fashioned gentleman. I love that.

Now it's true that lots of "modern" women will often argue, "But I make my own money, and I want to keep my power in this relationship, so paying my share keeps us on the same level."  (I hear women who regularly "go Dutch" making these kinds of statements all the time.) But going on a date isn't like going to dinner with a business associate. And by allowing a guy to court you, and yes, even pay for you, it doesn't mean that you "owe" him anything whatsoever. So why can't women just sit back, relax, and allow suitors to dote on them a bit--without worrying about analyzing what it all means.

I definitely consider myself a feminist, but that doesn't mean I don't still believe in chivalry. And another thing, I think women who always pay their share are actually hurting themselves in the long run. They're sending the wrong message, that they don't expect men to make them feel cherished or special. It's not about the amount of money spent. It's all about the gesture, etiquette and effort.

At the same time, John's one hundred percent correct about the rule that women should never allow a guy to pay the full bill, if she knows she's not romantically interested him; it's not right. And in these cases, I've always made it a point to pay my share to make it completely clear: THIS IS NOT A DATE, BUDDY!


During a recession, some women might feel guilty always allowing the guy to pick up the tab. But I still don't believe that "going Dutch" is the best solution to tough times. Instead, go to a super-cheap restaurant, or cook a delicious meal together at one of your apartments. (But let him buy the ingredients.) Be flexible, but just don't let the recession ruin your old-fashioned romance.