Guys, this is just the same type of propaganda trying to still normalize spending 5 or more monthly wages on a diamond wedding ring. Guess they now aim lower at making people think $200 dates were a thing when they likely never have been.
this post was submitted on 13 May 2026
58 points (92.6% liked)
Dating
390 readers
101 users here now
A community for discussing dating.
No product promotion. No memes. No gender war nonsense.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
$200 for an average date night? Who the hell is pushing that number?
Paul Dilda, Head of U.S. Consumer Strategy, BMO
Lol this fucker is clearly not very good at his job.
You see, most couples pay $50 - $120, some pay $5000+, so the average is $200. /s
First date is ice cream or coffee and a walk. Find out if they’re insane before spending money.
I am insane. That's why the first date is a $5 pint of vodka and crawling through storm drains.
Sign me up...
At the risk of this sounding a lot like victim blaming, why are people spending USD$200 on a first date!? The first date is to get to know them and shouldn't be expensive, especially if you're not even sure you're compatible yet. The paid experience isn't the point (except as far as it facilitates getting to know the other person).
There's some serious economic problems right now, but going out and being expected to spend a lot of money would be a serious sign of financial incompatibility for me.
because that's what it costs for dinner for two at most basic bars and restaurants in a city.
a dinner date is the traditional date.
women, by and large, expect men to take them on traditional dates and pay for everything. even if you split costs, it's still expensive.
when i go out, by myself, to take myself out to dinner, a cheap dinner at a dive bar is $60. a nicer one, is double or triple that.
last time i spend less than $100 on dinner date was like a decade ago, back when things cost about half or less than they do now.
Maybe it's a cultural difference (I live in Canada), but I'd never take a woman out to a dinner date for the first date. And certainly not to a place that's $100 each. Going out for drinks (coffee/alcohol/mocktails/etc.) is my preferred option, especially for people I've met on dating apps. Or doing some sort of activity. It's chill and a much better atmosphere to get to know someone. And if you run out of things to talk about with the virtual stranger you can talk about the activity. Traditional expectations are never based on current reality, they are based on the past. If they're looking for a traditional relationship with traditional roles, that's a very good reason for me to avoid them. We don't live in the 18th century anymore.
I occasionally see people who say they expect that sort of thing as a first date and I simply find it unrealistic. More power to them if they can find someone who meets that expectation, but I don't think that's a modern expectation. Feminism is literally about equality (or close to it) and we've made a lot of progress towards it. I think most people want an equal partner, not a meal ticket.
Also US$60 for a cheap meal? Wow your economy is wild. I regularly go out to a pub downtown and get a meal and a beer for under CA$40. I often get take-out lunches (good soft drink & sandwich) for CA$20. Even going out to the most popular place on OpenTables in my city is less than CA$50 per person without drinks. I'd have no problem taking a date to any of those places and paying for it all as a third date, though I'd hope we'd be on the same page about splitting bills equitably by that point. (Note that the Canadian dollar is worth less than the USA dollar)
If you lived where I live, you'd get no dates. The women decide the parameters of the dates they will accept, not the men.
They have no trouble repeatedly finding men who will take them on expensive first dates, because there are many men who are willing to pay $200 for the privilege of talking with a woman for an hour or two. So that is the standard they expect. Any man who doesn't offer that is devaluing them as people, in their eyes.
It's basic economics. Dating is a highly economic activity. money plays a huge role in mating. her time is worth money, if she is givng you her time, you better be offering her money or something money can buy.
it's unrealistic to you, yes. But it's not to them. many women where i live, would rather be alone, than date or marry a man who isn't boosting their lifestyle, as in, if she makes 150K/yr she ONLY wants men who make 300K/yr because a man who makes 200K or less can't 'add value' to her life, as in raise her social and economic standing.
and dating has ALWAYS been about this. traditional gender roles still dominate heterosexual dating, as much as people like to claim and believe they do not. people love to talk about love, but the funny thing is love tends to go away when the money does...
Are you in the Bay Area where there are both more men and high paychecks? Because I’ve been all over the US and that’s the only place where I could somewhat believe this is the norm.
Meet up for coffee or a drink. If there’s interest, you can maybe extend it but this way it’s lower pressure and cheaper if there’s no interest. Nothing worse than getting yourself into something longer when you can tell in the first few minutes you aren’t interested.
If you lived where I live, you’d get no dates. The women decide the parameters of the dates they will accept, not the men.
If I get no dates because of parameters that I've chosen, I'm pretty sure I decided just as much as the women. On the other hand, I've never had a woman turn down a date with me. Not that I put much effort into getting dates or even swiping on online dating apps...
I'd also rather be alone than be in a relationship with someone who doesn't add to my life. That is not exclusive to women. The only people who don't share that opinion are the people with no sense of self-worth. The USA might be culturally obsessed with money (more than the rest of the world), but there are things worth more in life than having a large bank account. I think you'll find that your economic lens on dating is not giving the whole picture and that you're devaluing your own worth. The women who do want men who make way more than them are hypercapitalists and the state of the world right now is exactly why they're not worth caring about.
and dating has ALWAYS been about this. traditional gender roles still dominate heterosexual dating, as much as people like to claim and believe they do not. people love to talk about love, but the funny thing is love tends to go away when the money does…
Maybe in the USA, but certainly not in the world as a whole. I don't know of any of my friends or family in relationships right now where only the woman cooks and cleans and the man pays for everything. Everyone splits chores, work their jobs, and take each other out on dates. Not that I'm a fan of marriage, but it's not love if a little of the worse of "for better or for worse" (financial hardship) is all it takes to break it. But if the primary reason to be together is financial, as you suggest, then that would explain a lot as to why those relationships would fail. Better to just avoid anyone who might be put off by a bit of financial turmoil instead of wasting time with them.
Go hiking. Go for a walk. Stop being consumers for 5 fuckin minutes.
Where the fuck are people spending 200$ on a fucking dinner.
Last date I had topped out at 70 with tip at my favorite sushi place.
Yeah, the dates I have lined up are gonna be dinner and a movie and maybe a walk, worst case, $110 max if I'm going a little crazy.
That might explain why all of a sudden I've gotten so popular on dating sites.