Sunday, May 22, 2005

Money matters

How does (or can) a guy prove the sincerity behind his feelings if he doesn't pay or buy anything for the girl?

Back in the medivial days, suitors were required to shower the maiden with tokens of love (songs, ballads, jewelry) as proof of their affection. Even during the Victorian and early 20th century men continued to woo women with expensive gifts. But today it seems like it's getting more and more rare to find a guy that is willing to pay for the girl (dinner, movies, ect) for dates.

Given that the average guys can't sing (otherwise they'd be in a band or in the process of becoming American Idol #3) or compose love ballads like Shakespeare, how are guys suppose to show that they genuinely care about the girl (and it's not just a booty call)?

As my friend put it eloquently: "he doesn't have to pay for everything, but it's nice to know that he's willing to and has the ability (enough money)." For a girl (at least this one), a date is based around a certain amount of expectations and rules. If a guy asks you out, and you don't know him or have never seen him before, then doesn't it kinda make sense for him to pay for dinner ? It's the opportunity cost of forgoing your free time, time that could be devoted to something else; in other words, you didn't have to say yes to his date, so shouldn't he should pay for it knowing that you could've said no but didn't ?


Women are always interested in establishing recognition of equality in a relationship (that the guy doesn't look down on you or think you're think you're below him), but paying for dinner comes down to one thing: are you interested enough in the guy to go on a second date with the guy.

At the end of the dinner and one of two things happens:
(A) the guy will offer to pay for the entire meal or
(B) the guy doesn't offer to pay for the entire meal

How an American woman interprets (A):
(1) if she doesn't like the guy, and she'll have no problem having the guy pay for dinner or (2) she does like the guy or is at least stil semi-interested in him, and she might have a little bit of a problem of him paying for it, but won't insist on it.

In the case of (2), she'll only put up a token sign of offering to pay for it for appearances sake.* From (2), she will proceed to (3) Because he offered to pay, she want to leave a good impression by offering to pay half/her share so that he'll think she really believes in equality between men and women and thus could be low maintainence. Her socially desired outcome (4): increasing her dating material potential and the possibility of future dates.

How the American woman interprets (B): (1) she'll assume that that's how he'll be in the relationship and reach conclusion (2) and start to lose interest in him.

How a Chinese woman interprets A: After asking his age, analyzes his current career status (does he have a 401K, steady job, ect) and asks what his future goals are.

How a Korean woman interprets A: I wonder if oppa will buy me more things soon. Analyzing possibility of how datable is this male given his income & past relationships. She says to herself (and knows) event B is unlikely to occur because she's on a dinner date with a Korean male.


*There are always those rare women who doesn't mind paying her share, but these women are in the minority.

3 Comments:

At 7:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Womankind was liberated. Pay your fair share.

 
At 1:33 AM, Blogger Sakura said...

There's a *slight* difference between being liberated and feeling/believing/wanting to be liberated.

Is it a contradiction for a woman to acknowledge her liberation, but still not want to pay ?

 
At 9:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, in the middle ages the womans family had to pay the suitor or his family lots of money/land/assets in order for him to marry her. Because noble women were generally useless.

ryan

www.livejournal.com/users/theleftovers

 

Post a Comment

<< Home