What Are We Really Buying When We Pay for a Date?
They met for dinner. She was nervous, having made her way to the restaurant alone. The single rose he brought, wrapped in cellophane, felt like a worrying sign—a gesture that probably wouldn't include a complimentary Caesar salad. He, meanwhile, had already mentally tallied the cost of her order and was subtly trying to spot the outline of a wallet in her small handbag.
She hung on his every word, hoping to hear the phrase, “I’ll get this.” He anxiously counted the pieces of baguette she took from the bread basket, waiting for the bill. She’s a waitress, he’s a waiter, and in this quiet, unspoken battle, both are convinced they are about to be cheated.
Judging by the noise on social media, this isn't a date; it's a business transaction. The goal is to minimize loss and maximize profit. Sincere feelings have been replaced by income and expense tables, and the arguments over who should pay for what are relentless. How did we get here?
The Ghosts of Tradition
Money has always been a factor in relationships, but the dynamic used to be starkly different. For centuries, women often had to rely on men because they had few other options. While women today can build careers and be financially independent, the cultural echo of the past lingers. Many people, consciously or not, still long for a world of male breadwinners and female homemakers.
This system was cemented hundreds of years ago when women were legally and economically powerless. Their property, their income—it didn't belong to them. At the start of the 20th century, only 20% of American women were in the workforce, and for married women, that number was a mere 5%. The husband earned the money; the wife managed the home.
In the traditional Western legal system of the 19th century, a married woman wasn't even seen as a separate person. As the English lawyer William Blackstone famously wrote, through marriage, the husband and wife become one person in the eyes of the law, and the woman's very existence is "suspended." Her property and income automatically became her husband's. In post-revolution France, the Napoleonic Code of 1804 was even stricter, legally obligating a wife to obey her husband in all things. Divorce was rare, but if it happened, the man was often ordered to pay alimony, as it was assumed the woman had no means to support herself.
These laws are long gone. So why do we still cling to the shadows they cast?
A Tug-of-War Between Two Worlds
We live in a state of constant contradiction. On one hand, we feel a deep-seated need for conformity. It's a psychological defense mechanism that helps us fit into society. If everyone around us acts a certain way, we tend to follow suit to gain acceptance and avoid rejection. When we see idealized relationships online—he showers her with gifts, she is beautiful and doting—our psyche pushes us to want the same. This can fuel a powerful "missed opportunity syndrome" (FOMO), especially in young people, creating shame and anxiety for not meeting an often imaginary standard.
On the other hand, there's a powerful counter-force: reactive resistance. When our personal worldview clashes with the majority, we feel our freedom is threatened. This sparks a desire to protest, a push for individualism that is especially pronounced in relationships. Cross-cultural studies have shown that in individualistic cultures, common in the West, marriage is increasingly seen as a partnership for personal happiness, not a societal duty.
This has created a deep conflict. The old model, where the man provides everything, is outdated. Women work and desire independence, and a dual-income household is far more economically stable. Yet, a significant gender wage gap persists. Statistics show that women in similar positions still earn considerably less than men. Because of this, many women still have to rely on a partner financially, especially if they decide to have children. If a man is counting every sip of her tea on a date, what happens when she needs to buy an extra pack of diapers?
We are stuck between two norms, and their supporters are in a constant, bitter clash. Everyone seems to expect deceit from a potential partner, leading to a game of mutual suspicion.
Survival, Security, and the Price of a Date
Some argue that it’s simply biology. One landmark study surveying 10,000 people across 37 different cultures found that women tend to prioritize partners with high income or status, while men are more likely to choose physically attractive partners. This is often explained by evolutionary theory: women subconsciously seek a stable provider for potential offspring, while men look for signs of health and fertility.
But a biological predisposition means little without cultural context. We no longer survive in a dangerous wilderness. Today, we seek secure attachment—relationships where we feel comfortable and safe. In our modern capitalist world, that feeling of security is inextricably linked to money. Research has repeatedly shown that life satisfaction is directly tied to income, at least up to a point. Once basic needs for housing and food are met, money's ability to buy happiness weakens, but it still provides a sense of control.
The economic landscape for women has shifted dramatically. American economist Claudia Goldin illustrated this with her "U-Shaped Curve," showing that as societies industrialized, women's participation in paid labor first decreased before rising again. In the 19th century, factory work meant a husband’s salary could often support a whole family, so married women stayed home. Working for pay was stigmatized.
But as women gained access to education and the demand for labor in sectors like services and education grew, things changed. By the early 20th century, women in most states could legally own property, sign contracts, and control their own earnings. The relationship model began to shift from dependency to a search for an equal partner. Yet, the post-war era, when a single salary could comfortably support a family, is a distant memory. Today, that old model is simply not economically viable for most people, even if nostalgia for it remains strong.
This confusion gives rise to modern archetypes. For some, a woman's spending on her appearance is an "investment" that a man should "reimburse" through his generosity. For others, everything must be split 50/50, and any deviation is a sign of a "gold digger" or a "cheapskate." It's a transactional, deeply cynical view of human connection.
Distorted Screens and Real-Life Silence
This entire debate is amplified and distorted by the internet. We are victims of the availability heuristic, a mental shortcut where we judge the likelihood of an event by how easily we can recall an example. News cycles and social media feeds thrive on outrage. Stories of plane crashes make us feel that flying is incredibly dangerous, even though it's the safest mode of transport.
Similarly, a few viral posts about a woman who faked interest for a free dinner or a man who meticulously divided a $1.50 bagel bill can make these extremes seem like the norm. Algorithms see our engagement and feed us more of the same, reinforcing the idea that all women are greedy and all men are stingy. Anonymity online removes our social inhibitions, turning disagreements into vicious arguments. We say things to a faceless avatar we would never say to a person in front of us.
The irony is that these loud, angry online battles obscure a quiet reality. Millions of couples go on dates, navigate finances, and build lives together without drama. The happiest couples are often those who communicate openly about money, viewing it as a shared resource in a partnership built on trust. They aren't posting about it because there's no conflict to report.
We are caught between two parallel worlds. Online, a war rages over every penny on the bill. But in real life, most people are just trying to connect, calmly figuring out who’s getting the coffee today, no labels attached. The bill gets split, the costs are divided, but the one thing that can’t be cut in half is a genuine feeling.
References
-
Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–49.
This foundational study provides the empirical data for the article's discussion of evolutionary psychology. It surveyed over 10,000 individuals in 37 cultures and found universal patterns in mate selection. Specifically, it confirms the point that women, across diverse cultures, place a higher value on a potential mate's financial prospects and ambition, while men prioritize physical attractiveness, which signals youth and health (fertility). This source directly supports the biological arguments mentioned in the text.
-
Career & Family: Women's Century-Long Journey toward Equity. Princeton University Press.
This book by Nobel laureate Claudia Goldin offers a comprehensive economic history of women in the workforce, directly supporting the article's historical analysis. It details the "U-Shaped Curve" of female labor participation, explaining how industrialization initially pushed women into domestic roles before the rise of the service sector and education brought them back into paid work. The book provides the context for why the "traditional" family model became prevalent and why it is no longer economically feasible for most, as argued in the article (specifically on pages 55-62).
-
What makes online content viral?. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205.
This research validates the article's claims about why extreme and emotional stories dominate social media. The authors analyzed thousands of New York Times articles to determine what makes content widely shared. They found that content evoking high-arousal emotions, such as anger and anxiety (which characterize the "gender wars" over dating expenses), is significantly more likely to become viral. This supports the explanation of the availability heuristic and why our perception of dating culture may be skewed by the outrageous stories we see online.