First, to address the "inviter should pay" argument:

  • When a woman invites another woman to a "friend date" (e.g. hanging out, grabbing lunch, going to a show, etc.) , most women assume that they will pay for themselves.
  • When a man invites another man to a "friend date", most men assume that they will pay for themselves.

The norm when not dating is that even if someone is invited, the bill is split.

Why are non-equal paying norms and expectations bad?

  • The man and women have to do the weird ass paying dance. The woman has to wonder "If he pays for me, does he think I owe him something? Will he be offended or feel inadequate if I pay for myself?". The man has to wonder "Will she feel unappreciated or slighted if I don't pay? Will she think I'm not into her? But if I pay, will she think she owes something to me?". This can all be avoided if the cultural norm for dates is going dutch.

Why not alternate who pays?

  • They have to go through the same dance as noted above to determine who pays first (hint: the man will). Then the person (the woman) who was paid for will feel pressured to go on an extra date to even up the score even if she doesn't want to go on another date. Also, the couple has to waste energy keeping track of who paid last time.

What if one person can't afford the bill?

  • The peasant should bring that up when the date is being planned.

Q.E.D.