Hi! I'm Caroline, and I'm a feminist!

This isn't the first time I've started a piece this way, and it definitely won't be the last. I have a lot of feminism-related beef, and I guess I should consider myself lucky that I have a platform that allows me a soapbox to shout from. Anyway.

I saw a video recently from Elite Daily that really bugged me. Spoiler - I already have a pretty low opinion on things like Elite Daily or Buzzfeed Video, etc., because I think the majority of their content is low-hanging fruit (did anyone see that ridiculous Buzzfeed video that's like "Is Cheating Ok?" Y'all.) and appeals to the lowest common denominator, and is presented in a format that's pretty sensationalized (and definitely biased). If you watched any election coverage from either of these mediums, you know what I mean. Anyway - the video in question suggests that because women spend an extravagant amount of money to prepare for a first date, the guy she goes out with basically owes her dinner.

Ladies - as the title explicitly says - no, he doesn't have to pay for the first date. Or any date, really. Let me explain:

Okay, first of all, the video suggests that the majority of women spend $200 on lingerie for a first date. Sorry, don't think so - catch me at Victoria's Secret taking advantage of that 7 for $27 deal on panties. Full disclosure - my most expensive set of intimates are Calvin Kleins, and while I love them, the whole set together cost me about $50 (which is expensive!). I know not all women are like this - my standard for "expensive" isn't necessarily an "across-the-board" definition - but you have to admit, $200 for first-date lingerie is pretty lofty. As someone who's never spent more than $100 on a pair of shoes, let alone a set of intimates, I'm not sure I can wholeheartedly relate to a video which purports I spend that before a first date. Other ridiculous expenditures in the video include $82 on designer fragrance - which, okay. Did I spend $65 on Esteé Lauder's Modern Muse? Yeah, I did, but I didn't do it for one date. I did it because it was 7:00 am at the San Juan airport and I hadn't bought myself a Christmas present yet (sue me! It was duty-free). Nobody asked me to spend that money, just like your date didn't ask you to spend $50 on a professional blowout, or $20 on eyeliner (what eyeliner are you even using?), or whatever else you feel you need to look your best before your first date.

Don't get me wrong, though; you're in charge of what you spend money on, so if you want to spend that money - that's fine! I won't even pretend I didn't drop $44 on Mario Badescu products last week (thank you, tax refund). Here's the thing, though - I didn't buy any of that stuff because I thought my boyfriend would like it - I bought it because the Strawberry Face Mask smells amazing and I love it! It feels good to treat yourself, and if that means spending money on that blowout or that lingerie ($50 or $200), it's not a crime (in moderation, of course). The "women only use beauty products to impress men" argument is so trite I don't even really feel the need to discuss it in detail; in essence, I take issue with the suggestion that because the woman in the Elite Daily video bought all those things to impress a man on a first date, all women do that. It's just not accurate.

Second of all, and more importantly, is the video's insinuation that the man "owes" her. This is ominous for a lot of reasons, but mostly because it harkens back to that old suggestion that because a man buys a woman dinner, she owes him sex. I'm not sure where this concept that anyone owes anyone anything came from; if a guy buys you dinner, he buys you dinner. He did a nice thing for you, sure, but you don't owe him your body or your virtue or whatever it is he's asking of you. He made the choice to buy dinner - you didn't make him do that. Because of that, if you choose to spend extravagant amounts of money preparing yourself for a first date, you chose to do that, and your choice is valid - but it doesn't mean he owes you dinner (or sex, or anything else!). By all means, split the bill on the first date. Split all the bills, for God's sake. Balance in a relationship is essential (trust me, I've been there), so you might as well get a head start.

Does that mean he can't ever pay for dinner? Of course not. If he offers, that's really nice, and I'll generally accept (because, duh, free dinner). But I don't ever (ever!) go to dinner with someone unless I at least have enough to cover my share. That's just what you do. If you go into it expecting your date to pay, that's just selfish, and it sets a precedent that you might not even realize is unhealthy. I've been in relationships where my partner's self-image was so inexorably connected to whether he could pay for my meal that we actually skipped dates just because he couldn't pay for both of us. Guys, come on! It's 2017, and I'm an independent woman with my own money, and I'd love to pay for your meal every once in a while! Again, the key factor here is balance. A healthy, loving relationship is balanced in all aspects, and even though the question of who pays for dinner seems like a small thing, it can grow into a much, much bigger thing if you let it.

So, in conclusion - he doesn't have to pay for dinner. Neither do you. If you can't pay for your own meal, don't go on a date, dude. If he offers to pay, that's super cool! But don't assume he owes you dinner because you spent a bunch getting ready (and definitely don't assume you owe him sex because he bought you dinner, of course). Can't we just have a nice date without having a squabble about who "should" pay?