Should You Pay for a Date? | Girls Chase

Should You Pay for a Date?

pay for a dateIt used to be the way things always were in America: if a man and a woman went on a date, the man paid. No two ways about it.

It's now not quite as ubiquitous as it used to be, but it is still a very common mindset. Many women expect men to pay for the first date. Many men would even feel embarrassed to not pay for the first date. Of course they pay for dates! That's just how it's done, and anything else would be classless and rude.

Chase AmanteAbout the Author: Chase Amante

Chase woke up one day in 2004 tired of being alone. So, he set to work and read every book he could find, studied every teacher he could meet, and talked to every girl he could talk to to figure out dating. After four years, scads of lays, and many great girlfriends (plus plenty of failures along the way), he launched this website. He will teach you everything he knows about girls in one single program in his Mastery Package.


Related Articles from


Brent's picture

I see your point... many times I have gone out on dates and paid for everything which has led to nothing. I have also gone out on dates and paid which led to sex as well. Recently on the 2nd date with a girl we went out to a nicer restaurant. First date was a casual meet up for a drink so I decided to do something nicer for the next one. The check came and was around 70 dollars. She offered to split the bill but I said it wasn't a big deal. We ended up going somewhere after for dessert and she paid for that. She then came back to my place and we hooked up. This has happened a few times so I'm just confused. To pay or not to pay? I think it really just depends on the situation? Either way I can afford to pay so I do for the first few dates and then eventually as we see eachother more often we start splitting the bill. I'd say it's 50/50 for me when I pay or don't pay so who knows. I enjoy reading your blog man. Keep up the good work. You have a great perspective.

Anonymous's picture

You must be easily getting girls if you have the ability to be paying for $70 meals. Congrats though

Otegz's picture

A dude that can pay for $70 meals is probably rich and rich dudes do not have to put in too much work to get girls. Most girls are attracted to the fact that a guy is rich.

Nick D's picture

I went out with a friend last week and bought him dinner - I was best man at his wedding a few years back & I'm def not looking to be his provider or lover. Bill was about £90, which according to Google is about US$144. I wouldn't class myself as particularly rich either.

I'm not too sure how accurate the article is - I mean "don't try to impress on a first date" that's pretty much what they are for!

If I'm out with a woman I'll usually offer to pay whether its a date or just just friends. Not looking to provide for any of them (most of my female friends are in longterm relationships anyway). If I'm out with my girlfriend one or other of us will pay.

Anonymous's picture

Is a 70 dollar meal expensive? Try 150 where i am from. Damn Australia.'s picture

I'm traditional and my bf paid on first dates but not after couple months no longer does
I feel were more like friends now

Migz's picture

Brent, even if you sleep with the girl, it sets a bad foundation. She thinks you want a relationship, and she expects to go on more dates where you pick up the tab, and it gets awkward to stop doing it.

You get trapped in the lover+provider role, and eventually you become simply a provider when she loses attraction. On the long term, the relationship will last longer if you have her pay and give her only sex.

janis's picture

not so Migz, trust me, I am a woman and I have NEVER heard of your perpective being true... I know you guys want to hit with little finance...

Anonymous's picture

I am a girl and I call bs on this article. I completely agree with janis. If a girl likes you she will let you know she's interested (it has nothing to do with being put into a certain category). I have paid for dates and I have had dates pay for me. The only difference in chance of getting some action was how engaging were, their confidence, and just overall having a great personality. Looks do of course factor in so I'd say a good looking guy could get away with not paying but I don't believe this would put a good light on the average guy. Maybe the girls thought you couldn't afford the date and felt bad? Or maybe psychologically you felt more empowered and that was reflected in your attitude and confidence which in turn got you laid. There is no significant evidence that the correlation you found in your single case means the action act or lack of action (not paying) was the cause.

Anonymous's picture

Quite a few women in this thread have claimed that whether or not a man pays has little or nothing to do with how a date works out, whether or not eh sleep with him and what form the relationship ultimately takes.

If that is true, then women shouldn't mind if men stop paying for them completely.

So I call on men everywhere to stop spending money on women (and their dependents) and just spend your money on yourself.

Try this... take a woman you desire but don't expect to get sex from (because you won't at the end of this night) to a fancy, expensive restaurant... and tell the server right up front that you'll be paying with separate checks... then order a mixed drink, the scallops appetizer, the steak and lobster main course, a glass of wine and a chocolate lava cake and coffee for yourself. Now fold your arms and sit back and watch the fireworks.

Once she has ordered a small salad and water for herself, start a convention about how nice it is to be independent and not having to expect anything from anybody else... don't hesitate to mention the things you've bought for yourself and places you'll be taking yourself with your money.

See how long you'll be able to go on before she gets angry and storms out.

tl:dnr I call BS on women calling BS on this post.

Anthony Dashun's picture

You are my hero. How come I never thought about it like that. Good point, keep sex out of your mind and just pay your way, lol. See if she calls you the next day.

Chase Amante's picture

Hey fellas,

Brent, thanks for kinds words and I'm glad to hear you're enjoying the blog. Your question's a good one, and yeah, tough stuff to figure out exactly sometimes.

"This has happened a few times so I'm just confused. To pay or not to pay? I think it really just depends on the situation?"

This is one of those things where I'd probably say you succeeded in spite of it. Attribution is a killer for that reason... for instance, say you launched into a really long-winded story, and the girl seemed bored, but then you ended up taking her to bed later. Did the story actually help -- or did you bed her in spite of it? It can sometimes be hard in retrospect to figure out what helped and what hurt and what really didn't play much of a factor either way.

There are a few instances in which paying can be okay, and you seem to have found one of them in your example. If you pay for something, and then she pays after, she'll often end up feeling like both of you are investing in the two of you getting together -- which can actually work out quite well. If only you pay and she doesn't though, any women you take to bed following an evening like that I'd be inclined to say you bedded in spite of paying. I've had dates that ended with the girl in bed where I'd tell her I'll pay for the drinks if she'll pay for the food, and such arrangements.

Migz, that's for sure a potentially dangerous trap to avoid. Always good to try and start things off on the right foot, and the earlier something begins in a relationship, the faster it gets cemented as a long-term expectation.

Even if you want to be paying 75% of the time later on in a relationship, it's just good practice to get in the habit of not doing so early on so that she doesn't start taking it for granted that you'll pay.

Great comments here gents, and great discussion. Cheers for that!


Maya's picture

I'm a woman and I believe that if a man has asked her out HE SHOULD PAY. I can understand if a man doesn't want to cough up a fortune on the very first date with a woman he barely knows and takes her to a more reasonable restaurant. After all, no woman wants to be bought off or feel pressure to sleep with a man just because he paid. That said, being a cheap stake especially when you can afford a nice place or high-end activities is also a huge turn off and any self respecting woman would be angered/unhappy by that.
I would not jump to the conclusion that not paying for dates leads to sex. Correlation IS NOT CAUSATION. You would have to do a real EXPERIMENT to actually prove it instead of gathering anecdotal evidence from friends or personal experience. It is possible that you have forgotten to account for times you DID pay and still slept with the woman. As others have pointed out, it could just be that more good looking guys tend to not pay and get away with that behavior and manage to bed girls. Nothing to do with money, everything to do with looks. It could be confidence level of the guy or just the lack of desperation that someone who was paying and was therefore eager to please would not show.
I believe this advice is dangerous and does a disservice to people. There is a reason why men have traditionally paid and that is not just because of social norms but biological reasons-men are the hunters, pursuers and it is in their genetic make-up to be the provider/protector and even in case of casual sex, demonstrates high status and power or alpha-maleness. Paying for a date is the modern civilized way of beating your chest and bringing home the meat. It is also a charming and romantic ritual that makes a woman feel treated well. Of course some women don't care or don't have self esteem and they don't abide by the rules. But this article just confuses men and women more and changing dating rituals can actually end up doing a lot of damage. Times are changing and some women have turned this into a feminist issue.
I believe a better strategy would be to stick to paying unless the woman takes it as an insult or if you find out that she believes in going Dutch. Not paying as a rule isn't going to get you anywhere.
Personally, I would not see a guy again if he didn't pay for the first date even if I offer as a polite gesture. If he made me pay--oh my--I would refuse to cover him and only pay for myself and never see him again. I'm not a gold digger so I don't mind a modest date especially if the guy didn't make money but cheapstakes are also out. I would expect a guy to invest more than money however, so paying for a date would not excuse him slacking off in other areas. It is about making a woman feel special and money is a part of it.

100% Right's picture

I agree with all the other women here on this thread. The only reason men can get away with not paying for the first date and still get some has NOTHING to do with whether or not he paid; it has to do with HIM. The fact that he did not pay is only a symptom of the overall image (is he attractive, confident, intriguing, intelligent, sexy). Simply put, if a guy is all of these things and he knows he's a catch and knows he doesn't have to pay to bring this girl home, the girl is going to sense that just from his demeanor and think, "Well shit, he must really be great in bed" etc. etc.

A man without those qualities who does not pay for the first date stands absolutely no chance unless he's with a woman with no self-esteem or extreme daddy issues.

Case in point, I went to a bar last night with a guy and was very open off of HIM and his personality -- he paid for every single drink, and I still hit. So how is THAT for anecdotal evidence? :P

Atheist Indian's picture

In an ironic way, you made a case AGAINST paying for dates - especially for those 'average' men that your comment is tendered at.

By paying for dates and by not being a 'cheapskate', he risks ending up with a woman who doesn't like him enough to tolerate dates where he doesn't pay. The winning move is not to pay, so that he ends up with women who like him enough, regardless of his apparent average-ness, not to care about whether he pays for dates or not.

Of course, the latter type of women threaten the pool of provider that you so expect of 'average' men - so of course, shaming such women is in order. A daddy's girl is more likely to expect men to pay, since she expects men to pamper her just like her daddy did. An insecure woman is more likely to expect average men to pay tribute for her company by paying for dates, so that she is assured that she is worthy enough for men to pay for her company. So your claim that only 'daddy's girls' or 'women with low self esteem' would go for men who don't pay for dates, doesn't really fly and seems to be a mixed case of projection and trying to dissuade men from going for women who don't have the same expections of them as you do. A vieled ploy against a culture where men do not pay for dates.

Andyp's picture

The whole article is pointing out that a man who doesn't pay for the meal and instead splits, is considered a lover rather than a provider. You said "It could be confidence level of the guy or just the lack of desperation that someone who was paying and was therefore eager to please would not show." That's the point. Lover. Not provider.

It also sounds like you're looking for provider status dates from the get-go (like you said, the guy doesn't have to be rich but he provides), typically the men on sites like this are looking for more casual/maybe it could get more serious, relationships. As are the women they're trying to attract. There is actually a very large dating pool into the casual/could become serious area.

So what it really sounds like you're fighting for is validation of your dating pool, which is perfectly legitimate. It might sound like he's generalizing all women this way but he is just speaking to this group of people. He states that there is a 50% success rate which means he is implying that if this is the highest possible success rate, then these guys are getting about 100% of the girls they possibly can and the other 50% don't want that anyway. It's really quite clever.

Keith's picture

I went on a date with a woman and right up front I told her that I would like to go dutch. She agreed with no problem. We had a great dinner date, but I laughed my ass off at what she ordered. A $4.00 salad and a glass of water!!!! I had a sirloin steak with a bake potato, salad, bread, green beans, and a coke to drink! I bet you if I was paying she would have got the same as me! All you woman are a freaking joke. I love looking in my bank account and seeing the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and you little arrogant individuals who play games with men have nothing. I am older now and give a rats ass about sex! So that will never be played on me!!!!

TomLee's picture

Amen to that brother

Abhilash's picture

Spot on Chase! Spot on man! Love your website! It works in the States, it works in India too. No difference! The mentality of the woman remains the same.

Lisa's picture

A woman's perspective: If you invite her, you pay. If the guy asked me, so he should pay. I really don't think this is unreasonable. I do, however, think that it is unreasonable to invite someone out and then expect them to pay for themself or for both of you- probably they would, out of politeness, but would be very angry about it and would never see you again.

I once met a great guy who basically made me pay for the dinner he invited me to. I wrote him off and never saw him again. What a cheapskate!!

All I'm saying is that basically, if you follow this man's advice and don't pay for a woman on a date when you invited, you will lose your chance with her. Nobody expects you to spend a week's wages on a fancy meal. But if you invite, you should pay. Same as when I invite (and I do, and so do many women), I pay.


Chase Amante's picture

Lisa, thanks for your perspective. A little discussion is always good for getting to the bottom of things.

I've fleshed out a proper response here:

Dating Advice for Men

that discusses one of the (unfortunate, I think) realities that women's dating advice to men usually ends up being counterproductive to the man actually succeeding with women.

Basically, yeah, clashes with mainstream advice, and certainly women won't like it (it jeopardizes all those nice free dinners and doting menfolk!), but fact is, when you get out and put it to the test, a clear winner emerges, and it isn't paying for women.

I've tested it rigorously, and I know a bunch of other guys who have too. Paying is a really nice thing to do; it's great for men looking for friends.

Men looking to get physical with women and take lovers and get girlfriends though need to utilize a different approach.


Anonymous's picture

I think people are arguing here about too many different topics here. I am a girl and I understand what Chase is saying and it is EXACTLY true when it comes to searching for a girl to sleep with, or at least as the first goal. People here are talking about why are there different outcomes, etc, that's because what Chase is talking about is to have an agenda to sleep with a girl and how to be successful as the first mission.

Girls I know who go on many dates, if they are horny, and the man looks good enough, they don't care that they have to pay for themselves, or sometimes even pay for a man. If a man is ugly, they at least want a free meal for their time, and not sleep with them. It'll be nice if a decent to a good looking guy pays, even though that doesn't really make a difference if a girl is looking for someone to admire her body and sexiness. That's why sometimes a same man gets different outcomes from paying or not, because they are dealing with different women who are looking for different things or evaluate him differently whether he is ugly to them or not.

Since there are different outcomes, in a long-run of many dates, if you are looking for horny, or insecure, or desperate women who would have sex without the security of long-term relationship, not paying for them will come out cheaper and better way to get them. Also, if a man pays, like Chase said, it hints even those desperate single girls that maybe they should behave better to not give out the whore vibe, so she can finally find a security. If you are looking for a girl to sleep with, and decide on the long-term relationship with her later, then the best way is not to pay for her. So you can weed out the unlikely ones that won't sleep with you.

I personally don't understand why these men are trying to find ways to sleep with women, like it's some kind of a game, and something to be scored. I think people should try to find things that doesn't cost much money, like costing only gas and soda, and spend time with each other before finances arise, so they can both give time to see if each other is something they are attracted to, before finance clouds their judgement, and you can also see if one is just simply horny and not valuing relationship. People may get really horny at times, and lonely even, but short-term relationship with sex as the first agenda is not good for the girl's heart, no matter how tough and uncaring she tries to make it, and not good in terms of giving an illusion to men that women are OK with that.

I despise women who tries to use desperate men to make them think they will sleep with them, and just make them buy expensive meals. They always flaunt to other girls that they are worth something because men will pay for them. Or flaunt how she's worth something because she attracted a handsome man. Classic insecurity when women value looks or money. I admire women who can be a great support for men in their lives rather than base their value on how much money was spent on her.

I also despise those men, who paid and never got laid, generalize women as users and try to use them back, often by tricking some other women, who are actually desperately lonely as well and care less about your money, into bed. But then leave those women and saying, "Yeah! I got laid!" like it was a game. Those women can't help themselves from sleeping with you because they are just so delighted with any attention they get from men, but secretly hoping you will love her and treat her with respect, even though she didn't act like it. It's their fault, but at least know the difference between women who never slept with you, (who didn't value you as you wished) to those women who value you enough that they sleep with you with dream in their eyes. Hate the women who used you for money, and know that they are never the same person who slept with you.

I think many men are learning bad information about women from those user insecure women, and applying them to the rest of us. Don't go on dates if your mission is to get laid. Don't pay for women if she's about your age and has a decent job. Try to have a relationship by spending some time together. If she doesn't spend time with you to get to know you, then why spend any money or time or effort for such a woman? Don't waste your time with someone who wouldn't love you. It's not good for your self-esteem, or you learn misconception about women in general from such a person, and that will make your world a depressing place.

I've been all those women in my past. Low self-esteem thinking that I am worth a lot as a woman because men paid thousands even though I don't sleep with them, and then lonely because I couldn't find a boyfriend, so desperate for lusty eyes to see if I am attractive, then got over all the insecurities once I met someone who's my best friend. Money and looks never meant much to me other than a cushion for my emotional insecurities, but what I always valued was just someone who I can trust to have a conversation with, and laugh all the time. Now, we talked about finances and split to who can afford what.

So, from experience, girls will sleep with you fast and cheap if she's insecure, horny, or desperate, and that can be almost any single girls in the right time. If that's what you are looking for.

Jan's picture

I don't understand why it's thought that women flaunt sex for love or money. Maybe the woman is actually interested in having sex. Then there's the other misconception, that women have sex, because they have low self - esteem. That women are needy for love.

These are stereotypes that keep women in a real bind, keep everyone in a bind of
falsehoods about relationships .

A woman is not a whore, slut , tramp, easy, she's a woman with SEXUAL needs. It's her right to figure out what she wants to do. Women don't have to live in the
50's anymore.

Anonymous's picture

I couldn't agree with you any more!! "You hit the nail in the coffin!" I could of sworn you were talking about me...My eyes were WIDE OPEN! You almost made me cry, seeing I was one of those guys that had experienced both of your "despises"... When you were talking about the women, I immediately agreed to my defense because of the numorus times of feeling used by woman for paying and sometimes no call I was like "yeah I despise those women too, screw them!"

But when you started talking about men you despise, you called my number out!! and boy did it STING...rightfully so! I couldn't do anything but think of that sweet innocent young lady that you were reminding me sorely about. Oh, I can tell you first hand...that looking in that mirror hurts and it hurts bad!

At this moment I am single and looking for a woman companion to be friends with and hopefully build a relationship with but lately I haven't had any luck thus far.. Maybe karma, maybe depression...idk (i don't go out as much...) I have repented for my actions and I am now looking at my situation as something learned and to strive on to being a better person to each and every lady/women/person out there, remembering my past encounters. Hope there's still hope...wish me luck.

jules's picture

I'm a woman who has literally never paid for an early stage date, I will get more generous after we are exclusive. I've never slept with a man who didn't pay for me on a first date, as that would imply. Granted I've gone out with more men then I have slept with but seeing someone once is not the gateway to their panties. A man needs to prove to me that he values me enough to pay in order to have a chance. Luckily I go out with successful, intelligent men who are willing to prove themselves.

I do think your advice works for younger men, college aged, where casual is the norm but for men and women in their mid-twenties and on, men paying for women is the norm.

Anonymous's picture

"I've never slept with a man who didn't pay for me on a first date,"

So... you exchange sex for goods and services (food and an entertaining time). I happen to know a certain profession that practices the same thing.

Anonymous's picture

With the previous post

Anonymous's picture

The minute a man gets mean and stingy I dump him sorry but I don't do casual sex as I'm gorgeous and happy to go on casually dating hundreds of men until I find one who really wants me and will invest in me. Your advice is for the male player but I will outplay you all good luck

Anonymous's picture

Only a DBag would go out with you. I would smell you a mile a way and you'd be washing the dishes cause I wouldn't but you sh$#!

Katie's picture

I so agree with your comment.. If a guy didn't pay on the first day i would DEFINITLY not go out with him. It would be the biggest turnoff.. See what the OP doesn't realize is it's NOT about the money, AT ALL!! And he seems to have built a theory of his own and replayed that theory in his head to the point where he believes it!! When i was with a guy (who i ended up going out with.) By the third meal i insisted on splitting and wouldn't take no for an answer. He already showed he respected me enough to ask me out AND pay. Whoever wrote this completely distorted the reason behind guys paying for woman., i'll say it again.. 'IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MONEY'

I DO however this feminist and those who think men and woman should be equal should pay there own meal, open there own doors, etc Lol.. but thats just my opinion.

And not paying on the first date won't get you too far.. Of course there will be some that only stick around for the first couple of dates but it's life man, you gotta take a gamble.. If you think a woman is special enough to ask out and worth enough to pay for her then go with it. If shes not then Oh well another lesson learned! Only a few would actually stick around after a guy made her pay, and usually those are the desperete, overweight type of females who don't get alot of dates!

Evan's picture

In fact it's one I love to bring out in groups because it always creates alot of intense fun conversations. And EVERY SINGLE GIRL in a group has always agreed with the guys should pay mentality. What I think is truly funny is that a lot of times, when the party is over and I've gotten a few of the girls' numbers, I'll take them out, go dutch, and we'll still have sex and continue to keep talking. The point is that even those of you who vehemently disagree can think of exceptions to your rule (even if you won't admit it.) and in your mind you create reasons why it was a special case. When reality proves time and again that not paying doesn't disqualify you from anything. Women want to feel special, and that's fair. But it's a little close minded to believe a guy paying for dinner is the only way for a guy to make you feel like you're important to him and he values you. Not paying for women doesn't equal not caring about or respecting them. Both the women and men on here know that this is true.

Anonymous's picture

I agree. I believe gender role is important to a extent that just because women has more power than before, people should not forget their gender roles, because it's good for family, individual morality, and for society. But when it comes to money, gender is bs. I am a woman, and some women needs to be taught that men paying was based on dowry crap. Women wanted jobs and money for financial independence, which means, we can pick up the check sometimes too if we can afford it, and we don't need to choose men based on who can pay for us, but someone we like. Same with house chores. In life, the things that require equal partnership because the society demands it, we need to teach each other to change the old mindset to catch up with the modern time. Society is settled for two income family style, so women cannot do all the house chores and caring for a child alone any more, and same goes with men to make enough to support a whole family alone. So, women shouldn't expect that, that will only lead to disappointment and resentment because in the US society, it is no longer true. And men should not ask for all the house stuff to be done by women unless he can afford a single income family. Once that's taught, then women will feel less embarrassed about paying for a man, or base their value on what men paid. It is wrong to teach women if she has any MARKET value, like some kind of merchandise, she wouldn't pay. How about teaching women who are dating regular guys to say, "No, thank you, I got this check, because you got the last" or "Don't be silly, you know I make more than you!" So who pays what is SOLEY based on who makes what. If both equal, then split it or switch around for picking up checks sometimes. I don't understand a girl who wants to be taken out to an expensive meal on a FIRST date!? You don't even know him well on a first date. That's like trying to test if her p**** is worth $100 meal or probably testing for even less. Those girls will sleep with that guy once he impresses her enough with money, but what a sad sad hooker mentality girl. Society seriously needs to teach women that it does not make you value less if you pay for something you can afford and not make someone else buy it for you. But, if people can afford it, both men and women buys things for each other. I firmly believe money should not be involved until people get to know each other more, and until then, stick with something both can afford, and DON'T GO DUTCH, because it's classless, but say, "I'll get the next one." Women need to stop trying to use men for money and self-worth, and men need to stop trying to buy women when you can't even afford it.

Katie's picture

Hi Katie I`m Katie too ))) -who was first ? )))
Well I do believe it gets much less complicated if you just go to the park on your first day and problem of paying is gone)))
In the end it is all about being together ,getting to know each other and not stressing out about :``will he pay or I will have to pay ?``....
You pay for your thing ,he pays for his.Why would you like him to pay for your meal ? Because you are willing to go to bed with him and this is a reward?
This is what I would feel but I`m sure you have more experience than I do and it`s a personal choice ,right?I would feel very awkward if he paid as it makes me like ``now I owe him something back`` ....
When both pay for what they like and what they ordered they feel better ! They avoid silly situations ,waiting ,expecting ...all bla bla bla....I think this spoils all the pleasure of being together.
Make it simple - even better.
Go cycling together )))
Ok -for those who read my comments before I will not be posting here any more .There is one more Katie and do not confuse her as me .I will not be posting here anymore.Take care !
Katie 1 (or 2)

Frank D.'s picture

"If a guy didn't pay on the first day i would DEFINITLY not go out with him. It would be the biggest turnoff "

I'm a guy. when a girl doesn't want to pay for half of her bill, it's a turn off to me. I'm fine sometimes paying for a girl after we've been on a few dates beacause now i KNOW you a bit better because i got to LIKE you. but for me to pay for you simply because you are a girl? What are you saying? that girls are better than guys so we should pay for you?

"'ll say it again.. 'IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MONEY"

ok if its not about the money, then why are you turned off that the guy wants you to pay half?

basically what you and most woman think is that when a man does not pay he is cheap, but a woman not paying is not cheap. really? having a vagina does not make you superior. most girls and many guys support this sexist view which is why girls have been able to get away with free meals for so long.

janis's picture

I agree with a beautiful woman, I appreciate and expect a man to pay ESPECIALLY since he invited. And it isnt about the amount spent, its about the man taking charge and taking care of business. Real men know this, its boys and immature men who need a woman to pony up on dates. Trust me guys, if a woman has to pay or wants to pay, chances are SHE ISNT INTO YOU ROMANTICALLY...and IF she was and you continually needed help with the financial element of the dates, she may like you, alot, but this relationship will move into 'friend' area because the woman needs to pick up the slack.

roxie's picture

Totally agreed with you and Lisa. I do not understand men who want to split the bill in the first date.
It's a totally turn off!
Where are your manners?

If you want to meet someone and you do not want to spend money just take her to the park or something. Share some crackers. That could be more romantic than anything else!

Its not about the money; its about making feel someone special. Friend, lover, etc..


Anonymous's picture

I have never had this problem you talk about. I go out and women buy me drinks, want to pick up food tabs, etc. and they have no intentions of 'friends'.

No one is talking about guys "needing help with money", the idea is that the scenario is framed as a "casual" and not some job interview where the guy displays that he can financially take care of the girl. Women are interested in the guy, not what he can provide for her materially. If a woman is truly interested in you and wants romance, she won't care how much money you have, whether you eat $5 burgers or a $35 steak.

Bilabrin's picture

But in a real-world scenario if the girl is into you on a first date then she feels a bit of investment and to some degree wants to offer to do things to please you and make you happy. She'll offer to pay her half or all of the bill.
I think there is something to be said for the fact that if a girl does pay but thinks the guy is a jerk for it then she didn't really like him anyway and he didn't really have a chance. When you start to like someone you tend to automatically fail to see their flaws. The "Rose-colored glasses" come on and she works subconsciousness to make the relationship go more smoothly.

Ladies, can you not think of some situations where this has been true for you?

Anonymous's picture

So if it's really about "taking charge and taking care of business," that would mean he orders for both of you as well, and you get what the man chooses for you. But somehow that tradition has been abandoned as well, leaving only the bill to be paid. So it is about the money.

Anonymous's picture

This is pretty much the most ridiculous post I've ever read. I was rolling my eyes the entire way through this one. You are giving a personal opinion and trying to cleverly disguise it as some scientific experiment with actually proof behind your hypothesis.

The majority of your inferences (and therefore conclusions) are based on premises that are completely unsubstantiated. The inferences you draw from your whole theory of this friend, provider, lover thing assumes a man has an equal chance of being put into either of the 3 categories which is not necessarily true and, I would argue, is actually very likely UNtrue. Also, it assumes that a man can be placed into only one category, which as a woman, I can tell you unequivocally is NOT true. In addition, in your section "keep it informal" you clearly make the assumption that there are two outcomes that can happen...either you can take a girl on a cheap date and get laid, or on an "uber formal" date and never win the girl over. Give me a break. Like a girl has never slept with a guy that took her on a nice date? Stop making generalizations and stop acting like it’s a black and white situation lmao. It completely undermines the credibility of the already weak argument you are trying to make.

If you want to give your opinion then give you opinion and let it be known that that is what it is…in your opinion you get laid more if you don't pay for a girl when you take her out. If you want to come to the party with a psychological experiment then bring some well documented numbers and specific case-studies proving that not paying for a date actually improves your chances with women. And you're probably going to need more then yourself because I highly doubt that one man can realistically take out and date enough women in a reasonable amount of time to generate statistically significant numbers. And if you want to make an argument (since you obviously don’t have a real study) you should think about reading up on the pieces necessary to construct a true and logical argument . It will help it to not be picked apart to hell and back.

Chase Amante's picture

Hi Anon, thanks for dropping by.

Actually, my idea with this post was not to "disguise it as a scientific experiment" but rather to at least put up SOME numbers and draw SOME conclusions rather than simply cough up the same mainstream rehash that everyone else bandies about. Yep, I know, you should always pay for women because that's what your second grade teacher said is the path to marital bliss, but... well... from everything I've actually seen, that advice, despite being quite ubiquitous, doesn't hold up.

No, this isn't a proper scientific experiment conducted in a lab; I'm not funded to conduct any research, and I'm not sure even how well you could have a controlled study for something like this. But, since you do seem so interested... any interest in providing a grant?

That said, it doesn't make much sense to call this an "opinion" either, because I am, like it or not, measuring real results.

A few questions your comment raises:

  • Where do I say a man has an equal chance of landing in the friend, lover, and provider categories? I'd say the chance is greatest for friend, lesser for provider, and significantly lesser for lover for most men.
  • Where do I say you will always succeed with women on inexpensive, informal dates or always fail on expensive, formal ones? What I say rather is that you're more likely to succeed on inexpensive ones and more likely to fail to succeed on expensive ones.

I guess what I'm saying is, in response to your demand that I "stop making generalizations and acting like it's a black and white situation"... please kindly stop twisting my words into generalizations and implying that I make gray situations into black and white ones!

In any event, kudos for attempting to "pick apart to hell and back" the arguments made in this post, though I think you fall somewhat short of that. Asking me to censor myself until I've conducted proper scientific studies is on the extreme side -- this isn't Scientific American nor is this Nature. This is MY BLOG. Discussing what I've seen to be true IN MY LIFE and the lives of others. I'm not going to censor myself because a few people find the gray world outside the Matrix is less pleasant than the colorful fairytale inside of it and they want to stay plugged in.

Anyway, this is a site designed to break things down to a technical level for men to help them do better with women, not a feel-good, pat-you-on-the-back, give-you-a-gold-star fluff site where we talk about mainstream, politically correct "how to be a nice guy she feels safe with" stuff. This is stuff that's technically correct but politically incorrect.

Finally, there's one more side to this argument, which I didn't mention here because I didn't think it was relevant, but when I have occasion to discuss it with women they always agree with me: yes, there are women out there who expect men to pay for their presence. But if all a woman is concerned about with me is whether I'm picking up the tab for her or not, then we've got a lot more problems than that. Personally, I'm looking for a woman who wants to spend time with me because she wants to spend time with me... free food be damned.


Anonymous's picture

I totally agree with you Chase. Especially the last comment. I want a woman to hang out with me because of the great qualities about me, not the great things I can provide her. Also, a guy asking a woman's opinion on dating is wrong most of the time. They'll tell you to do things that they want done for them to make them feel better. Also, I hear women say that all the time - they'll never go on a second date with a guy if he makes them split the bill. Not true. If they are having a good time and like the guy, they won't care. If they aren't having a good time and or don't like the guy, they'll care, but even if the guy paid, they still won't see the guy again because they didn't like him.

Dashie's picture

And the fact that they are just generalizing on what mainstream would expect of them.
They don't know what it's like to feel a little uneasy.

Actually I would think if they ran into the situation on this article without reading it whiles enjoying their time with the guy they are going out with they would normally be fine with this more than they realize.

Kevin 's picture

LOL, LMFAO.... youre so not a scientist. Oh my god!

This girl cracks me up. Someone just passed Statistics with a "C" and wants to show off.

"Picked apart to hell and back"? Wow, you need to stop flattering yourself. This website has some of the best advice ever handed to mankind. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize this....and yes, I'm a rocket scientist.

Chase, thanks for letting this girl post on your site. She makes me crack face.

Anonymous's picture

I wholeheartedly agree Kevin.
Chase, your site is wonderful, and it actually makes SENSE
for once! It's well rested on Chase's vast experience, and is
very practical.
Thank you for your many advice.

Kenji's picture

First off, I understand where the women are coming from: if there was a blog for women on getting guys to pay for dates (and I'm sure they're around), I wouldn't enjoy reading it.

Secondly, Chase isn't saying to make the woman pay, he's just telling guys that not paying seems to increase their chances.

Thirdly, I understand Lisa's point of the inviter offering to get the tab; I live in Europe and have for the past 5 years and it's especially a cultural thing to do this in Western Europe, "I invite you" translated in both french and Spanish literally means "I will pay for you".

Fourthly, I would agree with the anonymous girl that women do place guys in more than one category. But I would also agree with Chase, though he doesn't mention it - that if women do happen to place a man in just one of those categories (or mostly in one category), her behavior towards him becomes extremely polarized. The same is true vice versa.

But for the first 3, there actually seems to be a logic where both opposing views can fit:

I'd like to bring up that I neither pay for women nor ask them to pay for me. If I do pay for them, they get the next round, and vice versa. But I would like to bring up a few occasions where a woman kept insisting I never get the next round.

She'd get me coffee, I'd offer to get the next round, then she'd bust her money out before I could take my money out and she'd pay again, telling me to "stop being ridiculous, it's just coffee". Whenever I did buy two small beers for me and her, she'd come back with two caipirinhas for me and her, etc. Yes I was sleeping with her, but this sometimes happens to a lesser degree with girls I don't sleep with.

If a person (or woman) is truly enjoying their (her) time with anyone (a guy), it seems like offering to pay seems like a natural byproduct of that. I've gone on casual drinks with ladyfriends of mine where I'm almost certainly in the "friend-zone" and they are like "Stop. This is on me". I neither offered nor asked them to pay, but I didn't refuse it, and I thanked them.

The point I'm trying to make is that Chase's post could read like "women paying is a tactic for getting women into bed" but I'd like to point out that women paying for men seems more like "a result of her already wanting to bed the guy".

Again, I don't ask women to pay for me. I always go dutch whether I'm out with a friend or a woman I really want. In other words, I always do the same thing. I haven't gone on as many dates as Chase has, nor have have I broke it down into percentages, but I will say that I did have far bigger chances with the girls that did pay for me. Why? Because for whatever reason they already wanted me and I didn't refuse when they offered, not because I used "not paying" as a tactic. The girls I did split with I've had less chances with because they weren't already as into me, but still okay. The girls that demanded I pay, I don't think I've ever, ever touched - probably because I already did something to kill my chances, which brought about this behavior in them.

That said, and from experience, I would agree with the ratios Chase gives on how paying translates into hooking up, but I'd add that who does pay seems to be an effect rather than a cause.

Lastly, to the point of expensive dates: I did have a ladyfriend that was wined and dined to the 9s and she ended up sleeping with a guy the first date. Can't say she's a gold digger because she dated a friend of mine for years who isn't the wining and dining type. Thing is, the rich guy is so loaded that he frequents places of that caliber every time, so him taking her to those places is not him being impressive - it's just what he always does and he'd do it alone anyway. There are definitely other factors that came into play, but taking a girl out on an expensive date and paying is not always trying to impress the girl in every situation. In fact, it would be ridiculous for a 40-year old investment banker to split the bill in (even) a mid-level restaurant with a 20-something year old girl who is working 3 jobs to get through college. In cases like these, and there are plenty, if he were to just pay and not fuss about paying because he always goes to the these places anyway and he's not trying to be impressive, it's just his lifestyle - I don't think it will hurt his chances plenty.

I think the point Chase is trying to make is that for the majority of us men of normal income, taking a girl to extraordinarily fancy place may look and seem a bit artificial, so we come off as trying to impress. For someone like the guy above, there's nothing really artificial about doing that, the girl picks up that he's just him - it doesn't hurt his chances, it doesn't seem like he's buying her. But if us normals were to try it, it wouldn't always fly.

Conversely, if the guy from above/ some CEO really, really goes out of his way and routine to go to some street stall to "split the bill" and "not impress her", then that's a bit of a stretch and he has already tried to impress her, she'll pick up the fact that he's "broken his back to not break his back", and his chances will have lowered.

The question of the expensive date, it seems, falls more into how routine it is for a guy (how much he doesn't seem like he's stretching), but for most of us normal chaps, it is a stretch - the cheap/normal place does seem like the better option, and it would feel more natural, and less impressive, to boot.

Found both sides extremely interesting, and saw some middleground with different semantics. To sum up, women do slot guys into more than 1 of the 3 categories, but her behavior becomes far more polarized if the guy is slotted into just one. As a guy, knowing this can drastically increase your successes depending on what you want. Defo agree with the paying-to-hooking-up ratios Chase gives, but would point out that it seems to be an effect more than a cause (he doesn't outline as a tactic, he was probably just pointing out a fact, but I could see how the post could read like a tactic). Lastly, the expensive date seems to be okay for some CEO, but as long as the guy is not trying to be impressive, that's fine. For us, that might be some cheap cafe.

If I did err of if any of my points or experiences don't make sense, alternative views and explanations are always good.

Cheers, seriously interesting stuff,


Chase Amante's picture

Kenj, what's up brother! Cool to see you on here, man.

Yes, good point by you, and balanced reply; I should've noted that I wasn't necessarily advocating having women pay for you as a tactic, though I will note that I know a few guys who DO use it as a tactic and claim it works well for them.

Personally, I'm just increasingly having women offer to pay for things for me without me having to suggest it at all. I'd say actually the majority of first dates I've been on the past year or so, the woman has volunteered to pay. Even on a few traditional dinner dates, though I usual prefer informal cafe meet ups. In discussing this with a guy I've mentored recently, I mentioned that I think what is happening in my case is I'm providing so much value -- I'm having women frequently make comments like, "I feel so free talking to you!" and, "I feel so good when I'm around you, like I can talk about anything!" -- that they're wanting to pay for things as their share of the "value exchange."

Also a good call on the well-to-do guy springing for dates and it not being an issue. This is also something I should've mentioned to make it a properly balanced article; I'd erred in leaving it out. Men who have means can pay for things and have it be a non-issue, assuming they don't come off too provider-like in other ways. It can still raise women's provider alerts somewhat -- there's still a small risk she feels like, "Oh wow, he can just throw money like that down like it's nothing... I should be careful not to lose this one," and it's a pretty subtle effect that can subconsciously hit even the women who aren't "gold diggers" -- but overall, if the rest of your approach with women is tight, you'll have yourself mostly outside of boyfriend-territory and it won't be an issue.

Thoughtful reply, Kenj.


Anne's picture

This advice for men is total crap. I and most women love being treated well by a man. I agree with one of the statments above that said whoever invites should pay. This is standard courtesy. If I am dating a man, I would never expect him to pay for every meal, but if its the first date and he set it up, he'd better pay. And vice versa. The man I love insists on paying for meals, but every now and then let's me pay because he knows it makes me feel good to do so. We both work hard for our $, he loves being a gentleman and I love that he wants to take care of me, even though I can pay for myself. From the first time I met him, our first date and every one thereafter, I have always thought of him as a man I would date and eventually have sex with. Perhaps the women you refer to as dismissing a guy for paying and thus becoming "average" are women that don't know how to appreciate a quality man and want a man to treat them badly. To the men reading this out there, if you date a woman who can't appreciate your kindness and manners, she's not worth dating. And in return, she should be just as respectful, polite and acknowledge your efforts.

Anonymous's picture

Anne, just how often do you ask guys out on dates as opposed to them asking you? If he's already gone through the trouble of fitting you into his schedule, and making sure you were free, finding out somewhere he could take you that you would both like to go why is it that "He'd better pay?" He was the one that had to make all the moves, what did you really have to do outside of say yes and find out what to wear?

You seem to have a problem with this because this post isn't really based on what society views as "chivalrous" and you need to be "taken care of" but that's not something you ask a stranger to do, that's a parents job. You're basically asking him to commit to being your provider before he even gets to know you. Now think of that if it were the other way around, how would you feel if he wanted you to commit to being his lover before getting to know him at least a little?

People often fear change, but it's time get rid of this outdated way of thinking that women need to be taken care of. I'm not that type of person to cater to anyone, so of a girl's attitude is that I'm obligated to pay her way and show I can "take care of her" if I want anything to do with her in the future then that just shows she isn't worth my time or money. Reminds me of something called "manifest destiny" and that, my friend, really was total crap.

Jax's picture

I revel in the fact that you, a woman, have obviously come to this website to pick apart aspects that you do not agree with. Of course you would! It's counter-productive to your wants and socially acceptable pedestal for which you, as a woman, have been groomed and placed upon. In your eyes, you wield the power. A man asks you out, and you have the choice to say yes, or no. Therefore, you automatically direct the first piece of the play.

No one forced you to say yes, you said yes to a first date in response to an attraction and interest in the man. No one held a gun to your head and made you accept an invitation to dinner. When I am invited to a birthday party dinner, I do not automatically assume that the hosts will pay for my meal. If they offer it, that's awesome. However, it will not affect my enjoyment towards the meal, or the occasion for which I was invited to participate in.

Apparently, "if its the first date and he set it up, he'd better pay" according to you. Well, why is that? Honestly, think to yourself why this man owes you a meal as a human being. He invited you to spend time with him. I don't understand how that equates to "he better pay!!!" Just that one little snippit of your post is all I need to know about your expectations. You've offered no logical reasoning to support your request to be pampered. You simply cite the fact that you were invited. You, like all women, have an incredible sense of entitlement derived directly from your socially accepted and influenced power over men.

I am tired, just plain tired of the double standard. I'm sick of the "I wish I could find a nice guy" sighs from women who blindly and purposefully ignore real nice men. The song and dance that you women play is, honestly, utterly embarrassing. You claim that you want to be treated well, yet cannot deny your primal instinct for a man which you cannot tame. Women like you claim that "it's not as complicated as you make it seem!" or "I don't know what kind of women you go out with" while simultaneously stroking your egos when you make a man prove his worth to you.

"I and most women love being treated well by a man." of course you do!! Who wouldn't love being waited on, paid for, chauffeured around town, and doted on like a princess? Yet you, as a woman, control the flow of the relationship. And that wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that you and your sisterhood often abuse this quality in a man for when it suits your primal desires. "He's so nice, but... it's too nice." .. "On the one hand, he's everything I want, but I think he's a bit too weak." You women, always looking towards the future, stringing us along and you get upset when we try to counter you at your own "needy", self-righteous game?

Go ahead, continue to call men like myself misogynists. Maybe if you women actually grew up and threw away your girly fantasies of what a man is supposed to be, your expectations would be so high. And our tireless efforts to prove that you are beautiful, and than we care about you won't explode in our faces because, in your mind the more he reassures you of your worth, the less worth you deem him to have.

Add new comment

The Latest from