This theory from r/FemaleDatingStrategies is the most annoying one.

It's arrogant to think that a mans pocket qualifies him to be a HVM. Money has nothing to do with being a high quality person.

SUMMARY FOR LAZY/NO TIME HAVING PEOPLE

Paying on the first date as a man is fine. It's a nice gesture. And if you want to impress a lady, shelling out a few bucks is a good step. But requiring a more expensive first date, is a bad screening method, and an unreasonable expectation, if you don't know the person.

SCENARIO 1 - Unknown Woman

This is a woman you randomly met at the super market. You saw her, approached, and she agreed to go out with you.

The argument of "The reason you should pay, is because you are the one expecting to get a date out of her, so she's investing her time for you." is an extremely silly one.

As if a woman is a prize a man tries to get... We like to sweep equality under the rug when it suits us, right? 😉

Anyway, you're clearly both investing time into eachother. You don't know what you're gonna get. And you're investing an equal amount, which is fair.

My question is, why should a first date be expensive? Why must there be a 30$+ pricetag?

Wouldn't it be optimal for the first date to be a coffee, or a simple walk around town? This way, either party can leave if they feel uncomfortable, or if they feel it's not going well. Getting up and leaving in a restaurant is too much for some. And they would probably feel pressured to stay until the end.

It's also a lot to lose in a single night. Imagine you spend say... 50$ on every first date as a man. And you go on 4 dates a month, one each Saturday. That would be 200$ down the drain, if it simply turns out you're not compatible with someone.

It's hard to really get to know a person within 1 single date. So spending so much on someone you don't really know yet, shouldn't be expected. Infact, paying a lot on a first date should be an indicator of desperation or being bad with money.

It would make a lot more sense to have a nice coffee date, the man can pay if he feels like it went well, and if the woman turns him down later, he didn't lose much, and she got a free coffee. Win, win.

It's a test from both sides. It's the thought that counts of paying on the first date, it shouldn't be how much you pay. It's also a test from men, to see if the woman is a gold digger.

SCENARIO 2 - Friend of a friend

Pretty much the same as 1st, but there is blind reassurance from a friend, that "guarantees" the person might be a good match for you.

Here you might be willing to invest a bit more as a man, because you at least have some backing from a friend.

SCENARIO 3 - A woman you know well

This scenario is where you know a person, and you weren't able to date simply because of circumstances. So now that you're able to, you want to make sure it works.

Here, a larger 30,40,50$+ spending would be justified and/or a good idea. You're investing into a person you deem a good match for you, and are simply trying to increase the chances of the two of you matching.

All in all. Don't be greedy. A relationship works because two people have matching personalities, and fit each others expectations. Not because someone has a bigger wallet.

And no, it's not a good screening method. Requiring a large first investment is one thing, and having a gesture of having the man pay, is another thing.