I have friend who dated an escort, and he said she liked to pay for things; she always grabbed the check at dinner, and also bought him gifts. Later I read a Reddit post which described the same thing, and a Google search then found other, similar results. Is there a reason for this? One commenter said that it was because she wanted the relationship to feel different from work.
I’ve never had that impulse myself; in fact, quite the opposite (and I know a lot of girls who feel as I do). I’ve only had the one non-commercial relationship with a man since I started full-time sex work, but even in the dilettante days of my youth I felt the same way: I’m already bringing something of economic value to the table, and it’s up to him to match it with financial support. I’m only talking about the economic dimension of the relationship; I see the emotional and social dimensions as totally reciprocal by necessity. But frankly speaking, if I were to pay a man’s way I’d feel as though I were paying for his love rather than for sex, and though that may be perfectly OK in some women’s minds it certainly isn’t in mine. Now, it’s completely different in my lesbian relationships; with another woman I feel as though we’re both bringing sex and love to the table, and the question of “Who pays?” has less to do with the mating dance and more to do with the pragmatic question of who can afford it.
That’s not to say, however, that my way of looking at it (in either heterosexual or homosexual contexts) is “correct” or even typical; everyone has to do what works for her, even if it’s unconventional or would be seen by many others as “wrong”. And if being the paying partner works for some of my sisters, who am I to judge them? Perhaps they like the novelty (“she wanted the relationship to feel different from work”) and/or perhaps they get a sense of independence or even control by paying. Or perhaps they simply view it pragmatically, as I do when I’m dating a woman. And be sure to watch the comment thread below, because if any of my sex worker readers have other reasons she may tell them there. If it were me, I’d worry that a guy I was paying for all the time might only be there because I was doing that, or that he was developing a sense of entitlement to it, or that he secretly resented it or felt emasculated. However, I’m the Princess of Paranoia and often overthink such things; none of them might be true, and even if one were it might not matter to the lady in question as much as it would to me. The most important thing is that both partners feel comfortable with an arrangement, whether it’s “normal” or not; it’s only when one or both of them isn’t (or allows outsiders to convince him or her that he or she isn’t) that problems arise.
(Have a question of your own? Please consult this page to see if I’ve answered it in a previous column, and if not just click here to ask me via email.)
I wish you wouldn’t phrase it as “I’m already bringing something of economic worth to the table”.
If it’s a first date with me – you really aren’t. Because unless you throw yourself at me, I’m not hitting on you on that date. If it’s the second date – same thing. I always had a policy not to make a pass at a girl until the THIRD date. Why the third? It’s arbitrary but I think I heard that advice on the television series “My Three Sons” or maybe “Happy Days” – I don’t remember. WTF? Three is a magic number – so there it is. And I’d only throw a pass on the third to prove to you that I’m not gay – you’re perfectly fine in rejecting that one if you wish.
Having said that – I never made it to the third date, because the girl always threw herself on me on the first or second … sooo .
But that was my policy.
When you say you’re bringing something to the table – your confirming in a lot of men’s minds that women owe them WONDERFUL SEX after he pays for a $50 – $150 dollar meal for you.
Most escort rates are higher than that.
I think it confirms this myth to a lot of women too – hence the reason I never made it to the third date before they threw themselves at me.
Guys should pay – because they are guys … period. It’s our job. I don’t open doors for girls and expect them to fuck me for it. I do it because I’m a dude, it’s a social courtesy – and, in my opinion, a good one. Paying shows I’m not a complete loser to the girl – I might be someone she could link up with for life in a relationship that is economically stable. I mean – you can’t read all that into paying for a meal – but it’s a part of the equation.
I don’t know … that’s just me. If I just wanted to fuck a girl I’d pick one up in a bar or, usually – pay an escort. If a girl was interesting enough to me that I thought I might want a long term relationship with her – I asked her out on a date. I think I have a pretty goddamn good philosophy here and men would have a better reputation overall if they aligned themselves with it. The one thing that will set me off in an instant is hearing a guy say … “I took her to “Texas Chainsaw Masacre” and dinner at Appleby’s – and her knees were welded shut! Bitch!”
*applause* great comment! (funny, too…”TCM & Appleby’s, loooooolllllll”)
Both you and the person who asked the question may be overlooking the obvious. The key is “dated.” As a matter of common and simple etiquette, the one who extends the invitation pays. If I invite you to my house for dinner, when you ring the doorbell, I don’t look at you standing on the porch and ask “Where’s the food?”
I appreciate your answer, but the most likely and simple answer is that the escort was paying, because she was the one inviting the guy and proposing specific activities, restaurants, films, or other places to go that involve spending money. The person asking the question seems to have perceived or assumed a motivational cause that wasn’t there.
Of course an invitee who has accepted the invitation can offer to leave a tip or pay for something, but he or she shouldn’t insist.
As to gifts, she bought him gifts and paid for them. How else could it work? She has to buy them before she can give them.
So many ways I could comment on this. The phrase, “I’m already bringing something of economic worth to the table” gets my goat. It’s a date not a tool set on sale at Walmart. This phrase is one of the many reasons why I don’t date all that often. You can’t as a woman say, “I’m equal to you” but “I want you to carry my ass through life by paying my way.”
Don’t get me started on chivalry either. Stupid rules from the elites in the 18th century. In contrast to the other commenter most women today are hardly worth the trouble. I’m not opening doors because “it’s the right thing to do.” I’m opening it because as a human being I don’t want another human being to have a door slammed in his/her face. It’s not chivalry, it’s courtesy. I do this for men and women alike. Just showing up to the party with a vagina is not good enough anymore if you expect anything other than a escort transaction.
As a man, I’m becoming more and more dissatisfied with our cultures double standards on male/female relations. Seems to me that the scale is tilted in the favor of one gender over the other. For me, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. Sorry, I’ll go my own way from this point.
The cultural double-standard exists because it makes sense, brother. People have been conditioned to automatically grimace at the term “double standard” – but in some cases a double standard is merited.
Men and Women are NOT alike – not by a long shot. You want a hot wife you better compete for her by doing things like paying for dates. Don’t want to do it? Fine – some other guy will come along and do it and win her for himself.
Second, I don’t give a shit what feminists say – women will never be equal with men in the workforce because of one thing … they bear children. You get married – you SHOULD be the primary income earner. It’s almost impossible for a woman to keep up with men professionally when she has to take off every few years to birth a child … YOUR CHILD. And, in 90 percent of marriages she’s the one busing those kids around town, taking them to school and to the doctor. Be honest … she’s also the one cleaning MOST of the house. So a double standard here is merited. Most women will never realize the kind of professional success that you do – so you SHOULD compensate them for it.
And … if you really want to get down to it … men are looking for physically hot women … but women are looking for men with BIG …
WALLETS.
Feminists call men “shallow” for focusing on looks. Beta males call women “shallow” for focusing on the wallet – but in an evolutionary sense – it all makes sense.
Women … SHOULD DEMAND that men treat them in a chivalrous manner … always. Men … well, we are only as good as women demand us to be. In the present culture – women don’t demand much from us … so most men are asses. You can blame this on feminists – who have (probably unknowingly) worked to eliminate the double standard by insisting that men and women are the same.
You and I are two very different men, Krulac. The men of this generation are changing. Statistics are starting to bear this out. They’re demanding more for their hard earned money. Many are refusing to marry, to “settle down” and do what they’re told. They’re keeping their money and not divesting it in child support or vaginamony. They don’t want to pay for overpriced handbags and shoes which the lady can purchase on her own dime. They don’t want to see their kids once every two months or when the ex allows them. In short, they’re tired of getting screwed.
Maggie understands perfectly. Look, I want to pay for a womans time then I want her to leave. I don’t want to know her problems, cares, fears or concerns. I simply don’t care. I don’t want a wife/girlfriend, I want a place to put it for an hour or a day depending on my budget. I don’t want a wife, kids or a mortgage. Most importantly I don’t want to live under the tyranny of female hypergamy.
There are plenty of guys who are fine with the status quo. Who want to buy in. I know them. They get in sexless marriages and are divorced by the tens of thousands every year. They might as well paid for an escort because the wife in the settlement is getting a Brinks truck of money along with their children. Nah, they’re not me. My money is mine. I owe nothing to society, men or culture. I’ll die in my own arms.
So when Maggie says, “I’m already bringing something of economic worth to the table” I believe her. But I and any other men reserve the right to say, “No thanks, that’s not good enough.”
First … “Change” is not necessarily a good thing. What the majority of your generation are doing – doesn’t make it better.
Second … how old are you? When your dick no longer works – who are you going to surround yourself with? Or do you just plan on going to your grave alone? The fact is … that chivalrous code helped foster stable families … families that you will need for support at least in your old age if not many, many times before then.
I admit – there are challenges these days. Government, laws, feminists … they all seem to be working against men. But an Alpha Male will NEVER take the path of least resistance – in this case, APATHY toward women and what the real evolutionary role of men is.
I hear men cry and whine all the time about how the system – or their ex-wife screwed them. My advice … “MAN UP!” This situation isn’t going to last forever. In any case … that’s what life is about … hardship and bearing whatever cross you were born to bear.
By the way – I can say right now that NO WOMAN has ever fucked me over – not a single one. No woman has ever screwed me out of money or made my life miserable or untenable by some other means.
Maybe I’m lucky … but I don’t believe in luck. I might have a different opinion on all this if I had been screwed over by multiple women – but I haven’t.
“When your dick no longer works – who are you going to surround yourself with? Or do you just plan on going to your grave alone?”
Sorry, I got a chuckle out of this one. We all die alone, sir. Every single one of us. If you think that your sweet cupcake is going to switch places with you on your deathbed as you pass to the undiscovered country then more power to you…and her. Chivalry won’t save you and neither will “maning up” (what a stupid phrase).
If and when my dick no longer works then I guess I won’t use it…just like any other man than can no longer use his. There’s no boogie-man, no what ifs or but-but-but. You will die alone. My wife died alone. I was not there. So it will be with you. There are no promises or guarantees in this life. None. I’m old enough to know at least that.
I am a new guy here – I have been browsing Maggie’s wonderful blog for about a month now, and I have been waiting for an opportunity to contribute my views as well. This is that opportunity.
I am happily married now, and was never much of a fan of dating. But, when starting out, dating is something I had to do, because there wasn’t much of another way to meet girls/women. So, who should pay on a date? First, in the general (default) sense, second, should one date an escort:
In the general sense:
As I entered the dating scene, I quickly discovered that girls don’t issue first invitations. Not to me anyway – maybe some particularly hot/cool guys, or ones with a “special sensitivity”, get invited out, but not I. So, I had issue first invitations, and I would expect to pay without a comment. After all, that is what an invitation means. If there was a second and third date, I would also pay, or at least offer to pay. However, if this went on for a while – with or without sex – and the girl never offered to chip in, or pay for the occasional meal, I would not pursue the relationship long. What am I, a sugar daddy? At first, I was a student with little money, and my financial sources, aside from the very limited amount my parents could contribute, were from summer/part-time jobs and bursaries that women had as much access to as myself.
Eventually, I entered the job market and was better able to pay for other peoples’ dinners and entertainment. However, I was still not “hot property”, and if a girl did not show interest in contributing to common expenses after a couple of dates, I felt that I was being used. I presume that I lost out on some possibilities because of my attitude, but – on the other hand – the girls (by that age group, better call them women) who did continue to see me (and who paid their way) became good friends, if nothing else.
At the time, I was only vaguely aware of the existence of escorts. I wish I knew more, and took advantage of this way of reducing sexual tension and of having some feminine “touch” in my life. It is a far more honest way of dealing with the complex relationship between sex and money. I can only salute the women who choose this way of making a living – they do a lot of good for their clients, and to society as a whole as a result. Sexually frustrated men are not happy members of society.
When I met my wife-to-be, I did invite her out for a first meal together – it was breakfast in a diner, the most appropriate place to meet at the time. I imagine I paid for the meal, although (at that price level) who cares? More stylish dinners followed, but soon enough she showed up at my workplace one evening, and invited me out to dinner. Now there is a woman with character, I thought to myself – and we are still married 33 years later. But that is another story.
Now, the question of who is to pay if a man is going out with an escort/ sex-worker? As Maggie so well puts it, people should do what they feel most comfortable with. This may be hard to gauge at times, but I (for myself) feel sufficiently clear-headed and articulate that I think I could arrive at a consensus with a potential girlfriend (whatever her occupation), who presumably would be equally clear-headed and articulate. Otherwise we would not be a good match, would we now?
Both parties in such a situation face a risk, as Maggie herself says. The woman, if she pays or if costs are shared, might feel that she was being manipulated into giving away for free something that she earns her living by. The man, if he pays, might feel that the woman was pretending to an emotional involvement in order to gain a higher income than the one obtained from just everyday escorting.
In the throes of infatuation, such feeling may be put on the back burner, but they have a good chance of coming out eventually, damaging (or ending) the relationship.
Let us forget about sex for a moment. If two people start spending time together, and enter (or think of entering) a “relationship”, it is best if they are equals. Emotionally, intellectually, financially. The man no more should pay for a woman’s companionship than she should pay for his. The enjoyment and satisfaction from the relationship should be mutual, and should be their own reward. If they are not, than the relationship is bad, and at least one participant would be better off leaving it.
It is easy for the more sexually attractive participant of a relationship (usually, but not always, the woman) to claim that by simply being there she is bringing something to the table. With all due respect to Maggie, this is not so, except to men who get off on being seen in public with a gorgeous woman. If a woman spends time with me, gorgeous woman that she may be, I also bring something to the table: my scintillating wit, my sabre-sharp mind, my abilities to speak several languages and knowledge of, say, archaeology/welding/karate (all hypothetical examples – my own interests/skills are elsewhere). If these, and my looks (if any) are not sufficient, and she wants the contents of my bank account as well, it is better to go back to the simple escort/client relationship – it is far more honest.
Of course, if one participant is much better off financially than the other, it is common human decency for that participant to pay for most, or all, of the common expenses. But in such a situation, the path is open to a traditional “lover-mistress” relationship, which is just another version of sex work in my opinion. The one paying calls the shots, basically.
Now let’s reintroduce sex into the equation. Sex complicates the issue, because it is how the woman earns her living. If the woman was a lawyer or a doctor, would she be expected to provide free legal or medical advice to her boyfriend? This is a tough issue, and I would like to hear the opinion of professional excorts on the matter. In the unlikely event that I found myself in this situation, I would probably offer to pay the lady whatever her going rate was for all sex-related services, but insist on sharing other expenses fairly evenly.
All this is in line with my observation that, in modern, western society:
(1) demand for sex is unevenly distributed, and people willing to offer sex without further expectations than money (and common decency, of course) can reasonably expect financial compensation
but
(2) demand for non-sexual companionship is evenly distributed, and there is no more reason for me to pay someone for it (or to buy her dinner/theatre tickets/airplane fares) than for her to pay for mine.
I hope that I have not exhausted peoples’ patience with my views.
Also, just to prevent accusations of heterosexism, much of what I have said may also apply to non-hetero relationships, as well as to relationships involving trans people and the like. However, I know too little of their concerns, and would not wish to generalize anything I have said to their problems.
I dunno … I just always paid the check. Now … there were a couple of girls that I lived with, and we actually merged our checking accounts. Once that merger was made – it really didn’t matter who paid the waitress – at that point you’re like defacto married and it all comes out of one bucket.
My wife normally GRABS the check out of my hand now to pay it – because she says I overtip.
Now – it WAS an issue for me when I lived with a hooker (for two years). When I first met her, my paycheck from the Navy was, after taxes … around $250 to $300. She made that much in like 4 or 5 calls – her rate was around $150.00 per hour (in Hawaii, 30 years ago – and that’s being simplistic because there was NO MSOG back then – so most guys ordered up a half hour rate @ $75.00) … so she made quite a bit more than I did. I got a part-time job as a bouncer to make a little more money but, hey – it wasn’t much more. So I always felt uncomfortable with that economic relationship. You know … my economic contribution for the month might go for paying the apartment rent … and then “boom” – it was gone. Anything else had to come out of her earnings. I hated this.
I put up with up with it though because I was screaming assed in love with her – more than any other woman I’ve ever known. Over the two years – I DID start making more money but there’s no way an E-5 Sailor can compete with a moderately successful hooker when it comes to earnings – well, not back then anyway.
I’ve always taken the approach that if I extend the invitation then I pay and vice-versa. As it happens most men of my acquaintance usually ask me out (although I’m a bad date because I don’t sleep with them afterwards) whilst with women it is usually a matter of remembering who paid last time we went for dinner.
I have a female friend who graduated as a Dentist about two years ago. She often goes out with a gang of her high school girlfriends. And then she privately bitches to me that, because she’s a Dentist – they expect her to pay for everything! LOL – and … she does. 😀
Not a bad date at all, and you summed up the who-pays question most concisely and elegantly.
Two things I have learned that relate to this submission and its comments: 1) When it comes to men and women, anything is possible and, 2) you get what you pay for.
The word is gallantry, definitions one and two.
Something that surprised me, as a woman who came fairly late to the dating scene, was that none of the men I went out with would allow me to pay, or even split the check, until well after we became an established couple. I grew up hearing “chivalry is dead” and assumed that women are expected to pull our own weight now, but every time I offered to pay for my own dinner it was shrugged off. It was a little disconcerting to say the least, and I wonder now if that’s because it tipped the balance of the “economic exchange” in a way that I hadn’t expected.
The “sex as an economic transaction” model has never made much sense to me. Of course there are some people out there who would be willing to attach a monetary amount to, say, an hour of my sexual attention, so I realize it does have economic value, but it never occurred to me to do so. If I give someone sexual attention, it’s because I’m hoping to get sexual attention from him in return. Giving someone sex in exchange for him buying me dinner verges toward a barter system that seems to me to be easily misunderstood at best and objectifying at worst.
And of course I understand the logic behind “giving someone something they want in exchange for something you want,” but… I don’t particularly want men to buy me dinner. Or movie tickets. I am more than capable of paying for those things on my own if and when I want them. So my dates’ insistence on gifting me with something I didn’t really want given to me always struck me as throwing the transaction off-balance. Very few people would argue that a $50 dinner obligates me to put out; the decision of whether I put out or not is entirely dependent upon whether I’m attracted to the guy and want to fuck him. So why force me into debt when the decision of whether or not I’m going to fuck you is one I make entirely on a level of animal attraction, completely independent of economic factors or IOUs?
It was never enough of an issue for me to really dig in my heels about it; if a man refuses to let me pay I usually just shrug and let him foot the bill. And if I give him sexual attention later on, I get his sexual attention in return, so really, I come out on top. I got what I wanted plus a free dinner to boot. I guess I can’t complain, but I’d hardly call it an equal transaction.
“I’m the Princess of Paranoia and often overthink such things” … I like you even more now.
I won’t get into the debate but just share my personal experience. I do have sex with guys sometimes but romantically I am only into girls, and at some point I had a mutual-girlfriends dynamic with another sex worker who was more immersed in the work than I am (I dabble whereas for her it was her main career at the time, e.g., formally working at a legal Nevada brothel). She was very, very wary of getting anything of monetary value for free, because clients and others in the business tended to use gifts as emotional leverage, soon after. Her ingrained immediate reaction when getting a gift was suspicion rather than delight.
I can see where she’s coming from. I’ll omit the specifics but I’ll just say I’m similarly wary though my experience with gifts and emotional pressure began long before I was doing sex work. I love Jaguars (the car) especially the E-type, especially the convertible, especially in red, and someone once offered me one as a gift. I said “no” without hesitation because I knew that person well, and I expected the so-called gift to come with so many strings attached as thinly-veiled guilt-inducing demands that it would be healthier for me to just go buy the car myself. Eventually I wouldn’t even accept a cup of coffee as a present from this person. We’d be at a restaurant and I’d just be having coffee but I’d nevertheless ask for separate checks. Eventually I wound down the interaction. This person wasn’t an escorting client but the shoe nevertheless fits.
Back to my two-sex-workers-dating story: I see dating, and picking up the entire tab, whether for a hotel room or a meal, as a form of gift-giving, so that made for an interesting romance, since both she and I were accustomed to picking up the tab wherever we went. Eventually for the two of us, things softened into a sort of inside-the-firewall dynamic of trust, with its own just-for-us rules, which was wonderful. Then,gift-giving and picking up the tab had a different meaning.