Dating: payment optional?

Thanks to the sexual revolution, it’s nearly impossible to determine who pays for a date.  Traditionally, it was the man — but that was also a time when men were the only ones doing the asking for dates in the first place.  Now that it’s socially acceptable for women to ask, everyone’s all confused.  When a woman asks for a date and then offers to pay, you get one of four outcomes:

1. Man accepts and feels emasculated.
2. Man declines and after much tussling, pays for both.  Man’s dignity is intact, woman is secretly relieved/impressed but now feels robbed of the power she had when she did the asking out.  (If the woman really likes the man, this is usually good.  If she’s on the fence or not sure, this is awkward and uncomfortable.)
3. Man declines and woman refuses to take no for an answer.  See Outcome #1.
4. Man and woman decide to go dutch.  Both feel a measure of relief/awkwardness/disappointment.

A lot of this awkwardness can be avoided if women just let men do the asking for dates, but women sometimes will try to pay for their share even if the man does the asking.  Usually the reason for this is that the woman doesn’t want to feel obligated to put out for the man at the end of the night (MAN:  “You got a burger, now I get to put my tongue down your throat!”  WOMAN: “That’s why I ordered all the onions.”), or she isn’t that interested in the man and doesn’t want to give him the impression that she likes him (i.e., she will make a show of independence to decrease his attraction to her), or she wants to make a good impression and show that she’s a contributor, not a taker (i.e., not a dinner whore).

I think the best solution to these issues is not to go on expensive dates.  The issues mainly arise at the very beginning of a relationship, so why invest a lot of money to begin with?  The point at this stage of the game is to get to know each other better in a one-on-one situation; you don’t need to go anywhere fancy to do that, and a casual environment will also relieve some of the getting-to-know-you pressure.  Additionally, most women will feel petty or silly if they try to force a man not to spend $10 or less on her.  If they put up [token] resistance (“Oh, you don’t have to pay for me, I’ve got it”), a man should just say, “I asked you on a date.  I’m paying for you,” and let that be it.  If she presses the issue (“Are you sure?”), reply “What did I just say?” firmly but with a little twinkle in your eye.  Whatever you do, do not get into a debate/back-and-forth on the issue.  Settle it calmly and decisively with your manly authority.  If a woman really puts up a fuss, don’t ask her out again.

“But what if she thinks I’m cheap?”  If a woman is expecting an “experience” for a first or early-relationship date, you probably don’t want to be dating her in the first place.  A good rule of thumb, though, is that the inexpense should be proportional to how much you earn.  If you’re a pauper, she’ll understand that all you can afford is the value menu.  If you’re making six figures or more, the value menu will seem cheap so aim a little higher than that.  A good option for a wealthier man is to go somewhere with no cost at all, like a park or museum, or a fun, interactive, inexpensive activity such as miniature golf, or someplace that seems rich but won’t cost you much overall (like window shopping at an upscale mall but eating at the food court).

A couple of final comments:  one, a date should always obviously be a date.  Say the word “date”; this will eliminate a lot of confusion.  Also (men), reach for the check right away when it comes out.  This assures the woman that you do intend to pay.  The longer the check sits there unattended, the more she will wonder if you want her to offer to pay her part, and fret about what to do.  If you’re at a restaurant where you pay at the time you place your order, just get in line ahead of her, tell the cashier that you’re together, and then ask your date to order.

Did Halle Berry seal her own fate?

Yes, I am a stereotypical woman in that I enjoy reading about celebrities, seeing what they’re wearing, and dissecting their life mistakes choices.  It’s not so much a lifestyle aspiration (I live in Los Angeles and work in the entertainment industry, so I’ve gotten to see a lot of celebrities up close; most are uninteresting when the cameras are not rolling) as it is a perfect storm of things I like to analyze — faces, fashion, and behavior — all wrapped into one.  Basically celebrity trash magazines and blogs are like Super Wal-Marts of my interests…um, besides poring over John and Stasi Eldredge books, I mean.  Yeah!  Woo hoo!  Captivating 4eva!

Evangelicals spend a lot of time trashing Hollywood, not entirely without reason — Hollywood produces a lot of trash.  (Christian productions produce a lot of trash, too, but when the litmus test of trash vs. non-trash is “does it have an ~uplifting, heart-warming message that’s suitable for the whole family?”, trash production is an impossible thing to acknowledge.)  Anyhow, I see Hollywood not so much as something to denounce with the pointing finger of moral superiority but as the clearest possible picture of our sinful nature.  It is an unvarnished reflection of what lies in all of our hearts.  The only thing that separates most Hollywood behavior from our own is opportunity.  Remove all social and moral restrictions, and surround yourself with enablers and the most beautiful and powerful people of the opposite sex — the most sexually irresistible people in the world — and it’s not hard to see why celebrity after celebrity falls off the holiness wagon.

Last week news broke that 50% mega-famous, 100% gorgeous couple Halle Berry and Gabriel Aubry have split up.  (Gabriel is a male model who is the father of Halle’s 2-year-old daughter.)  They were together for four or five years, which in Hollywood time is pretty impressive.  The only thing surprising to me about this break-up was that fans were surprised.  Applying a Game analysis to the Berry/Aubry relationship, the reasons for the break-up quickly become obvious:  Halle, despite being acknowledged as one of the most beautiful women alive, is 43 and about to hit the Wall, if she hasn’t already.  Gabriel, on the other hand, is only 34.  At the time they began dating, Halle was still near the peak of her looks while Gabriel was still ascending in value.  Now, however, the tables are beginning to turn.  Halle is aging out of the fertility market, while Gabriel is just beginning to peak in his attractiveness to women.  (Obviously, being a gorgeous and successful male model, his attractiveness was high to begin with, but now he has maturity to add to his menu of scrumptious offerings, not to mention the insanely high preselection value of having dated a woman as beautiful as Halle.)  In addition, Halle got the baby she had always wanted and maybe didn’t tend to her relationship with Gabriel as before; I always got the impression that she valued having a baby over having a man.  Another important factor was probably the separation of the couple due to working in different places for extended periods of time.  Add in the unequal fame and earning power of the couple, the emotional baggage each brought to the relationship, and the extreme temptation of Hollywood, and voila!  Breakup.

Maybe the most predictive factor, though, was that Halle and Gabriel never married.  Halle is twice-divorced and has stated more than once that she has no intentions to marry again.  She told Ebony in 2004 that she wanted someone to “come and stay and be there because he wants to, not because he has a piece of paper saying he has to.”  Which is all very fine and noble, but…what if she and Gabriel had married?  Wouldn’t that have given Gabriel more incentive to stay with Halle and be an everyday father to their daughter?  Most divorces, after all, are initiated by women, and so far there hasn’t been gossip that Aubry is a player with a wandering eye.  Additionally, men generally stand to lose more (financially) in divorce, especially in California.  Despite being a community property state, it strongly favors mothers upon dissolution of a marriage.  I think it’s very possible that Halle Berry created a self-fulfilling prophecy for herself to lose a man by refusing to commit to him beyond mere feelings.  It takes two to tango, but beauty (which rapidly depreciates) and feelings (which come and go) are not the things you want to tie your hopes for a lasting relationship to.  There needs to be a stronger bond and reciprocal obligation between two people to weather the ups and downs of life, and in the vast majority of cases, that is marriage.