Who should pay on a first date? This question has been coming up a lot in my social media feeds in recent weeks. I must therefore conclude that many people are in a quandary. And since daters tend to skew young, I’ll also assume that young people are especially in a bind over this.
Many young men seem to fear that the money they spend on a first date is a sunk cost that may lead nowhere. The young lady may decide she’s not interested in you, or the dreaded, “I like you a lot—as a friend.”
This can, indeed, be the outcome. But this is nothing new. Young men faced the same range of possibilities in the 1990s, when I was a twentysomething. Such outcomes were possible in the 1980s, when I was a high school student. They were the same in the 1970s, and so on.
A first date is not, and has never been, a sure thing.
And yet, men do the inviting, and men do the paying. I’m not going to play a dirge on my violin for you because you’re a man and you end up paying for first dates. Just like I’m not going to play a violin dirge for women who complain that they must bear the burden of childbirth. Nature—and that includes human nature—is not egalitarian. There are downsides to being a man, there are downsides to being a woman. Deal with it.
Nevertheless, a little common sense can mitigate some of the economic “risk” involved in a first date.
I’m not a gambler, but an occasional (and financially solvent) gambler once told me: don’t gamble money that you can’t afford to lose.
When applied to the first date, this means: cheerfully pay, if you’re a man, but keep the first date modest in scope. The details of this will obviously depend on your age, working status, region, and socioeconomic level.
This really isn’t that hard.
-ET