The other day I overheard a couple girls talking about dating and how they think things should work. They were discussing whether or not the guy should pay for the date and figured it was obvious he should.

What was their rationale for this conclusion?

Simple.

They spend lots of money on makeup and clothing to make themselves look attractive for guys. Since they invest so much expense in all of this, it’s only appropriate that the guy should pick up the tab for dates.

I laughed to myself as I listened to this discussion. It reminded me of a stand up comedy schtick I heard a few weeks prior at Yuk Yuks.

The comedian was talking about the obvious fact that guys are attracted to girls largely because of their physical appearance. For that reason he felt it was clear why a restaurant like Hooters had risen in popularity historically.

Extrapolating from the success of the Hooters brand, he felt there was some real potential to create his own successful restaurant chain that would appeal to women.

He was going to call it Wallets.

I’ve talked about The Battle of the Sexes before. I’ve also broached this subject of who should pay for dates too both here and here.

There are definitely differences of opinion and emphasis between guys and girls on how things should play in the dating world.

The Battle post talked about differences between guys and girls regarding the desire for sexual fulfillment and emotional connection.

Today’s post deals more with how attraction itself works. I’ve written about this before too.

Although I’ve talked about whether women should pay before, the rationale these girls were expressing is different than the typical “guys should be the provider” spin.

So I thought I’d take a stab to see how this new logic of the “expense” women incur while dating fares, as a reasonable basis for the expectation for guys to foot the bill on dates.

Despite some empathy for what these two girls were telling themselves, the business person in me had to chuckle.

I’ve been a Microsoft Certified Trainer for over a decade now, giving technical training courses to corporate developers across Western Canada.

To give these courses there are several things I need to do.

First I need to be current on the technologies I teach so I have a sufficient knowledge depth to add value for my students.

I also need to prep each course I give, which involves potentially a 40-120 hours time investment minimum.

Then I have to obtain whichever certifications Microsoft provides to substantiate my capabilities to give the particular course in question.

Once all this is done, I finally have to market myself to the various Microsoft training centers, so they will hire my services for their course deliveries.

As you might imagine, all of this takes quite a bit of time and financial investment to pull off.

Can you imagine though what my training center clients would think if I were to tell them that in addition to the price I’m charging for my course delivery, I also expect them to pay for my personal technology skills education, my prep time, my certifications and my marketing costs?

They would laugh me right out the door!

Anyone in business knows that there are costs of doing business and those are costs you simply must absorb to be in business at all.

If you don’t properly prepare yourself to attract clients and provide real value, they won’t take you seriously at all and they won’t have any interest in acquiring your services.

If you want to test this theory just try doing business without that preparation, or try to bill for it after the fact.

You’ll see soon enough you’ll be out of business.

Why am I telling you this?

Girls, making yourself attractive is a cost of doing business in the dating world. It doesn’t entitle you to a guy’s wallet.

Want to test this theory?

Try not making yourself attractive so you can save that money you’re putting out and see how many dates it gets you.

Sure there may be some guys who will see past your lack of effort or expense to make yourself attractive.

But they will be the rare exception to the rule I promise you.

Even the “good guys” prefer someone who is caring about her appearance over someone who isn’t.

Don’t kid yourself about this.

A guy will always choose a girl who is physically attractive to him and has a great personality, over a girl who is not physically attractive to him but has a great personality.

Now as the comedian I mentioned recognized with his vision for the Wallets restaurant franchise, girls often do gravitate toward guys with money and guys who will pay their way.

But this is not because a guy’s money is an inherent part of attraction for girls.

It is because girls are attracted to guys with confidence.

Money can be an indicator of that. But money can also be a veneer masking the lack of the real thing too. I talked recently about how this whole veneer thing can trick you girls.

The 1950s are over girls. You actually have your own jobs now, unlike your 1950s counterparts. Of course guys paid the way back then. Inequality made that a necessity. But you were also very limited in your personal independence.

Times have changed.

There is nothing wrong with guys paying when they want to. I like to do that sometimes too.

But thinking it is obvious the guy should pay because you’re spending money on make up and clothing is just plain silly.

You can of course be frugal in how you go about all that and I would advise you to do so. You don’t have to spend a fortune to make yourself look attractive and to many guys when it comes to makeup less is more.

But making yourself attractive is just a cost of doing business in the dating world.

As I said, if you want to test this theory try not bothering and see how many dates it gets you.

What do you think? Is it appropriate to expect guys to pay for dates because you foot the bill to make yourself attractive?