IF you are the MAN in the relationship, you are expected to pay.
Did you just arrive in GH15's time machine from the time of the Eisenhower administration?
And if you are worried about not being able to afford food for 2 people at a food court, then you simply aren't even in the financial position to have a girlfriend.
Why is the argument that if you are not able to buy two people food then you're in no position to have a boyfriend any less plausible? We are not living in the stone age. It made sense that bringing home the meat was a "man's job" during the Paleolithic Era, when food came in the form of game, since only men have the natural strengh to hunt. However, how is bringing home the meat any more of a man's job nowadays when bringing home the meat implies working at an office with your ass sitting on a chair inside an air conditioned room?
What is more important to you? Paying for one girl's food for her love and companionship, or being able to be a glutton all the time ALONE. It's your decision.
So you are basically admitting that women are naturally mercenary and will only give you "love" and "companionship"(read "sex") if you buy them stuff and pay their way? You are not being a very good PR for your gender, you know that?
SUCKMYMUSCLE