Hillary Clinton Thinks Paying On Dates Should Be Decided On A Case-By-Case Basis

In a Q&A with Cosmopolitan, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton was asked to weigh in on an age-old debate amongst single folks who embrace gender equality but find their feminism challenged by the appeal of courtship rituals – who should pay on a date?! Her answer was middling, because she’s Hillary Clinton and that’s how she does, but in this case, I actually think she was spot on:

“Look, I think splitting the cost on a date has to be evaluated on a kind of case-by-case basis. You know, many years ago I remember doing that, and I know a lot of young people who even today do because they kind of consider more casual dates, group dates, to be ones where everybody pays their fair share, but I think you also have to be alert to the feelings of the person that you are dating. If it’s important to that person to either split in the beginning of the relationship, or for one or the other of you to pay for whatever combination of reasons, you know, you just have to evaluate that and take it into account. So I don’t think there is a hard and fast rule, at least that I have ever seen followed in every instance.”

I instinctively reach for my wallet in almost all date scenarios out of habit — I feel weird just ASSUMING anyone is going to pay for me, no matter how we ended up sitting across from each other sharing a meal or a clinking glasses. If the person I’m on a date with stops me and says they’ve got it, I usually accept – especially if I dig them, because it gives me an opportunity to offer to buy the next round or to take them out “next time.” The only time where I would push back and insist on paying my share is if something about the person’s attitude suggested they viewed paying on a date as some sort of transaction, where they expected something, especially something I wasn’t willing to give – be it a blowjob or a second date – in return.

But I also am not bothered when my dates don’t stop me from paying my share of the bill. I have some single male friends and my brother is also single and dating, and it’s obvious that dating can be a serious financial burden for dudes. Yes, in general, men make more money than women and if that economic imbalance clearly exists between you and the dude you’re sharing the cheese plate with (like if he’s a Wall Street banker and you’re a struggling artist or something), by all means, let him pick up the check.

However, on a case by case basis, that isn’t always true, and I can understand why men would start to feel resentful about blowing a chunk of money every month on first dates that don’t lead anywhere — not because it’s reasonable to expect every first date to be a success, but because that shit adds up! So while I agree with Clinton that who pays on a first date should be decided on a case-by-case basis, the one caveat I would add is that if there isn’t chemistry between you by the time the check comes, pony up for your portion. That way neither of you is better or worse off financially as you set out to find that chemistry with someone else. It’s only fair.

With that being said, if I happen to ever find myself sitting across from Hillary Clinton when the check comes, she’s paying.

[The Cut]