July 27, 2005
SELF-REFERENCE ALERT:
‘Worthless’ gifts get the good girls (Anna Gosline, 7/27/05, New Scientist)
Men who spend big money wining and dining their dates are not frittering away hard-earned cash. According to a pair of UK researchers, they are merely employing the best strategy for getting the girl without being taken for granted.Using mathematical modelling, Peter Sozou and Robert Seymour at University College London, UK, found that wooing girls with costly, but essentially worthless gifts – such as theatre tickets or expensive dinners out – is a winning courtship strategy for both sexes.
Females can assess how serious or committed a male plans to be and males can ensure they are not just seducing ‘gold-diggers’ – girls who take valuable presents with no intention of accepting subsequent dates.
The Wife actually used this strategy as a final test of love, requiring that I take her out on a dinner date--though in our case she was just looking to see whether she could get me to go to a restaurant, not whether I'd spend the money. I got my revenge though, when we got married she realized I'd just charged my way through law school and she was on the hook for the credit card bills, including the dinner. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 27, 2005 2:35 PM
Somehow I doubt she was surprised. Just like you, she thought it was a good bargain.
Posted by: erp at July 27, 2005 2:40 PMohhhhhh Pancho...
Posted by: DL Meadows at July 27, 2005 2:47 PMDinner at a restaurant? The question is, did this place serve french fries?
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 27, 2005 3:01 PMJim: The question is, did they go inside or through the drivethrough?
It's been my experience that, in a committed marriage of equals, the presents back and forth tend to be simple and inexpensive, the money coming, after all, out of the common pot. At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 27, 2005 3:16 PMMore Blessed Debt, OJ?
Posted by: Luciferous at July 27, 2005 3:30 PMMr. Cohen: The article discusses expenditures before marriage, not after. I agree with you about spending after marriage, but spending before is another story.
Mr. Judd: You got the better end of the deal, no doubt.
Posted by: Buttercup at July 27, 2005 4:09 PMDavid:
That is my experience as well. Neither of us would dream of spending more than a couple hundred dollars on our own. No permissions required, just "I was thinking about..." Not worked for the LCD TV yet, though.
Our "surprise" birthday and holiday gifts tend to be books, CD's and cooking gadgets. The bigger gifts - sewing machines, cameras, Staub cookware - have all be explicitly vetted and selected beforehand by the receiving party. This is both pre- and post- marriage. We're quite the romantics.
Posted by: Rick T. at July 27, 2005 4:19 PMjim:
It was this joint:
http://www.princeandpauper.com/
The only time I ever spent more on a meal than for a hardcover book.
Posted by: oj at July 27, 2005 5:31 PMI don't get the "worthless gifts" part of Gosline's article at all. Those gifts may not be durable, but they clearly have value and are priced accordingly.
Is the poor woman fixated on diamonds and Porsches? And how would she assess totally intangible gifts? (I can think of several worth more than a fine dining experience.)
Posted by: ghostcat at July 27, 2005 6:10 PMghostcat;
By "worthless" Gosline seems to really mean "consumable" or "non-transferable". I concur that it's sloppy writing at best.
Mr. Judd:
"Between us we owe a million" – I guess avoids having to worry about whether to spend your kids' inheritance or not.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 27, 2005 6:38 PMAgree with Rick T.
BTW, the wife paid for the wedding rings. I was in school. No money. No diamonds to this day,35 years later.
My wife paid for the wedding rings, the wedding itself, the honeymoon, and our first car. She finally got a modest diamond 10 years later. And it'll be 41 years in two weeks.
Posted by: ghostcat at July 27, 2005 7:03 PM> I don't get the "worthless gifts" part of Gosline's article at all.
A poor choice of words, I agree. I think the idea is to focus on gifts whose subjective value is tied to how much the girl actually prizes your company -- e.g., she isn't going to get too much pleasure out of a fancy dinner with someone she doesn't like.
Posted by: Guy T. at July 27, 2005 7:19 PMghostcat
I forgot. My wife paid for the wedding and the car too. Hope she dosn't have buyer's remorse. I don't dare ask.
We bought each others rings, but since hers fits inside mine she made me get her earrings too...
Posted by: oj at July 27, 2005 7:52 PMghost:
Dinner in a restaurant or a show is utterly worthless.
Posted by: oj at July 27, 2005 7:55 PMjd -
I've dared. She usually gives the right answer.
oj -
I probably did kick in a quid or two, but I don't know where it came from. We never heard of VISA in our time and place, and I was in hock for college.
Posted by: ghostcat at July 27, 2005 8:01 PMerp and Buttercup have commented. Where's The Wife?
Posted by: jdkelly at July 27, 2005 8:07 PMChecking the safe, just to be sure.
Or making sure the Chinese are keeping current on their debt payments.
Posted by: ratbert at July 27, 2005 8:22 PMOJ: I've been there, although not for years. A pretty good place, if memory serves.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 27, 2005 8:29 PM