When Dating: Should a Man Have to Pay for the Dates or Should Equal Rights Apply?

The question of “Who should pay on a date?” continues to stir debate in modern relationships. Traditionally, men were expected to pay as a sign of chivalry and financial strength. However, with the rise of gender equality, feminism, and shifting social roles, many now argue that dating costs should be shared equally.

This debate isn’t just about money—it’s a reflection of deeper cultural norms, psychological expectations, and even biblical principles about love, responsibility, and partnership.

Cultural Perspective

In many traditional societies, including African and Western cultures, men paying for dates was seen as an expression of provision and leadership. Historically, men were the breadwinners, and women were homemakers. Paying for a date symbolized a man’s ability to provide and take initiative, qualities that were highly valued in a potential husband.

However, modern culture has changed dramatically. With women achieving higher education, holding executive jobs, and often earning as much (or more) than their male counterparts, the notion of men footing every bill is being questioned.

In some cultures today, splitting the bill—or what is called “going Dutch”—is viewed as a sign of mutual respect and partnership. It reflects the reality that relationships now thrive on mutual effort rather than financial dependence.

Yet, in traditional African settings, many still view a man who expects his date to pay as disrespectful or even unserious. For many women, the act of paying isn’t about the money itself but about the gesture—the display of initiative, care, and intentionality.

Psychological Perspective

From a psychological viewpoint, the discussion around who pays often touches on gender roles, ego, and expectations.

Men often feel validated when they pay—it gives a sense of control and pride in being a provider. For women, allowing a man to pay can sometimes feel like a test of his seriousness and ability to invest emotionally and financially in the relationship.

However, there’s another side: if a woman always expects to be paid for, she may subconsciously position herself as a receiver rather than an equal partner. This dynamic can later manifest in marriage as dependency or entitlement.

Conversely, when both parties contribute, it promotes a sense of shared responsibility and mutual respect. It sends the message that love is not transactional, and both are equally invested in building something meaningful.

At the same time, men who insist on paying every time may be unconsciously reinforcing a pattern where affection is earned through financial provision rather than genuine connection. This can create pressure or resentment later on.

Biblical Perspective

The Bible doesn’t directly say who should pay for a date, but it provides wisdom that can guide us in this matter.

1. Leadership and Provision –

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her.” — Ephesians 5:25

This verse highlights sacrificial love. A godly man should be generous, caring, and willing to give—not just financially but emotionally and spiritually. So, paying for a date can be a reflection of his willingness to lead through love.

2. Mutual Respect and Submission –

“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” — Ephesians 5:21

True Christian relationships are marked by mutual submission. This means both individuals serve and honor one another. In dating, this could mean a woman offering to contribute or even treating her partner sometimes—demonstrating partnership, not passivity.

3. Heart Over Tradition –

“Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” — 1 Samuel 16:7

God cares more about motives than social customs. A man paying to impress, or a woman accepting as a form of entitlement, both miss the heart of godly love. What matters most is that both act from a place of sincerity, respect, and godly intention.

On a first date, it’s often appropriate and gentlemanly for the man to offer to pay, especially if he initiated the outing.

Over time, sharing expenses reflects partnership and maturity—each contributing according to ability and agreement.

Couples should communicate early about financial expectations to avoid misunderstandings.

A woman offering to pay occasionally is not unbiblical—it’s a gesture of appreciation and equality in giving.

Men should avoid measuring affection by how much they spend, and women should avoid equating generosity with worth.

Ultimately, the question of who should pay is less about the wallet and more about the heart.

A man paying can be an act of love and leadership. A woman offering to share can be an act of respect and equality.

In a godly relationship, both give generously—not out of obligation, but out of love.

When Christ is at the center, money becomes a tool to bless, not a weapon to control.

Reflection Question

Do you believe love should be measured by how much someone spends on you, or by how much they’re willing to grow with you?

Share your thoughts below