Consolidated Discussion - Paying for Dates

[dasein]

I was wondering how long it would take for you to chime in on this thread with inflammatory, exaggerated, and completely inaccurate characterizations of other people's posts. You're a reliable disruption, I'll give you that.

 

It's interesting how often and extensively the "right to get paid" crowd on this issue overlaps with the "right to not make sense" crowd. Kind of like a venn diagram with two circles yet only one visible.

[tbf]

We are talking about date 1-2 at least in OP, and that female expectation carries an added variable X number of dates to boot. Sometimes "X" is infinity depending on her level of "entitlement." At any time, she or he may say heave-ho without being obligated in any way. But he's the only one out $$.

 

So yeah, a guy dating goes out on 4 first dates in a month, 3 second and 2 third. Even on a shoestring that can easily add up to hundreds a month and thousands a year.

 

Yeah, getting annoyed at how the gentleman tax actually plays out in the average man's dating is some real "ferocious entitlement."

 

@thread, spare the upcoming "costs me more to date due to cosmetics and clothes than him." Inaccurate, played out.

Is there a reset button somewhere? If you don't want to pay, then don't. If you feel someone's slandering you, then go the legal tort route.

 

All the mechanisms are in place for any man who wishes to podium about social inequality because he feels he's entitled to date without cost and where he automatically negates the woman's cost of prepping for dates, in order to bang his fists about social inequality in dating.

[TheBigQuestion]

Then don't date women who feel this way. It's so simple.

 

Men aren't entitled to every woman they want. Same goes for women. We're not entitled to every man we want. It's okay for people not to be compatible in values.

 

Alright, fine. But why does that preclude any further discussion of the topic? Things like this are discussed for their merits all the time. Why do you think people shouldn't talk about it?

[tbf]

Alright, fine. But why does that preclude any further discussion of the topic? Things like this are discussed for their merits all the time. Why do you think people shouldn't talk about it?

Strawman. Nowhere did I posit that discussion should stop.

 

I've provided the reality of the situation, in simple and logical terms. Men do have an equal amount of control over the process. If men are looking for advantage in the first date process, that's called entitlement.

[crude]

Perhaps all men should band together and refuse to ever pay. It's Dutch or nothing. Become a "grass eater". Because every man I hear who complains about this, still does it.

 

So don't do it. Sure, you may never get a girlfriend, but you'll still have your principles.

 

If all men stopped paying for women, I can assure you that there would be wives, girlfriends, dates, marriages. All women wouldn't die virgins. There'd be as much sex as there is now. Women pay for themselves when they go out with friends, if they pulled an "I'll never pay for myself" they'd lose all their friends. If they wanted a client to pay for a business meal because he was a man, they'd do no business. Women only make men pay for dates because we're idiots. If men stopped paying, women would learn to pay their own way on dates too. You creatures are adaptable when men say enough!

[dasein]

I assume that people who so cavalierly suggest suing those who commit non-physical torts like defamation have never actually gone through the process themselves.

 

It's just another form of "let them eat cake."

[Mascara]

Men do have an equal amount of control over the process.

 

This. In big neon flashing letters.

[tbf]

Wrong. Previously addressed in the thread and not retyping.

Find the post and link it to prove your assertion or you're wrong.

[dasein]

Is there a reset button somewhere? If you don't want to pay, then don't. If you feel someone's slandering you, then go the legal tort route.

 

Have dealt with the above also in previous posts today, not retyping. Moreover, amounts to "be happy in the back of the bus," not retyping that either.

[dasein]

Find the post and link it to prove your assertion or you're wrong.

 

I'm not the one who keeps repeating conclusory statements and ignoring arguments against them already made a few posts back, that's you. Do your own reading, it's there.

[tbf]

I assume that people who so cavalierly suggest suing those who commit non-physical torts like defamation have never actually gone through the process themselves.

If it's truly a case of defamation where paying for first dates is such an important aspect of social inequality, then why would any man who feels he's being slandered (particularly men in the legal profession as you and dasein) not go the tort route?

 

That is, unless you believe the situation isn't a matter of slander and are only slandering women yourselves?

[TheBigQuestion]

Strawman. Nowhere did I posit that discussion should stop.

 

I've provided the reality of the situation, in simple and logical terms. Men do have an equal amount of control over the process. If men are looking for advantage in the first date process, that's called entitlement.

 

So you think you're encouraging a dialogue on dating norms by repeatedly telling men who have a problem with the way a disproportionately large amount of women expect to be dated to just look for women who don't have that expectation? It sounds to me like you're trying to discourage discussion.

[tbf]

Have dealt with the above also in previous posts today, not retyping. Moreover, amounts to "be happy in the back of the bus," not retyping that either.

 

I'm not the one who keeps repeating conclusory statements and ignoring arguments against them already made a few posts back, that's you. Do your own reading, it's there.

 

If it's truly a case of defamation where paying for first dates is such an important aspect of social inequality, then why would any man who feels he's being slandered (particularly men in the legal profession as you and dasein) not go the tort route?

 

That is, unless you believe the situation isn't a matter of slander and are only slandering women yourselves?

Read the above. So simple.

[tbf]

So you think you're encouraging a dialogue on dating norms by repeatedly telling men who have a problem with the way a disproportionately large amount of women expect to be dated to just look for women who don't have that expectation? It sounds to me like you're trying to discourage discussion.

What I'm doing is responding. Disagreement doesn't discourage discussion and neither does providing obvious solutions.

[TheBigQuestion]

 

I promise you, plenty of crossover occurs. And there are also plenty of people who are happily living by their principles without whining about … the egregiousness of it all!

 

Oh man. I was waiting for the accusation of "whining."

 

Whiners, non-gentlemen, cheapskates. What's next?

[William]

Let's move on, people. Thanks.

[TheBigQuestion]

If it's truly a case of defamation where paying for first dates is such an important aspect of social inequality, then why would any man who feels he's being slandered (particularly men in the legal profession as you and dasein) not go the tort route?

 

That is, unless you believe the situation isn't a matter of slander and are only slandering women yourselves?

 

Most men wouldn't go the tort route because lawyers aren't particularly fond of defamation cases. It's a tough cause of action to prove, and most men in this scenario, even if they dislike being publicly insulted for allegedly being cheap, would not think it would be worth years of litigation in order to get a paltry amount of damages.

[tbf]

Most men wouldn't go the tort route because lawyers aren't particularly fond of defamation cases. It's a tough cause of action to prove, and most men in this scenario, even if they dislike being publicly insulted for being cheap, would not think it would be worth years of litigation in order to get a paltry amount of damages.

But if it's honestly as important a social inequality issue that it's conflated to be on LS, why wouldn't legals like yourself be willing and chuffed to have a platform to go the tort route since it's the opportunity for some serious P/R over a supposed social inequality issue?

[TheBigQuestion]

Golddiggers and chumps, what else?

 

Was the term "golddigger" seriously used in the latest incarnation of this thread?

 

And yeah, a guy who feels that he needs to pay for dates in order to have sex or enter into relationships is a chump. But with that said, I wasn't being 100% serious anyway. That's what the smileys were for.

[dasein]

So you think you're encouraging a dialogue on dating norms by repeatedly telling men who have a problem with the way a disproportionately large amount of women expect to be dated to just look for women who don't have that expectation? It sounds to me like you're trying to discourage discussion.

 

That and "sue the women who slander you." Only on LS.

 

These discussions are all the same. First they get to the "inequity" argument, for which there is no reasonable retort in the year 2013. Then they shift to the "it's really no big deal, only a few dates, so the inequity is trivial." Then once actual pen is put to paper demonstrating lots of potential inequitable expense over time for men, we shift to "well if you don't like it don't do it." Then to the "if we don't do it we get blackballed and slandered" retort...

 

"sue them."

 

God forbid anyone threatens any side dish of "advantage" on the female cafeteria plan of distorted "equality" today. They will fight tooth and claw like cornered beasts over every scrap of past advantage, usually irrationally. "I'll have some equal pay, and for dessert, a serving of 'he pays' too! Yum!" It's like the overeaters who get two helpings of tiramisu and rationalize it by drinking diet coke.

Edited August 12, 2013 by dasein

[Mascara]

" Then to the "if we don't do it we get blackballed and slandered" retort...

 

"sue them."

.

 

Ok, here's another way to deal with it - ignore it. Just like, if you called a girl "gold digger" she would have to ignore it. And move on.

 

Earlier, you said that you paid a $85 tab then got called cheap for a $2 tip? Why did you pay the $85 tab? Why didn't you suggest going Dutch?

[TheBigQuestion]

Okay. COMPLAINING. Is that better?

 

I am completely serious. You and dasein represent yourselves as intelligent, thinking men. Where are you coming from? "Happy in the back of the bus" because the only way you feel you can "get" the women you want is by paying for dates?

 

Then, that's a choice. I don't think it's appropriate to complain about it or to blame women because you've made it.

 

This world is full of people who are not getting everything they want because living by their principles has proven to be of a higher value to them.

 

I am not "disrupting" here. If this paying for dates thing is so important to you guys, WHY don't you date only women who share the same value system as you do? Why wouldn't this be a useful weeding-out process? Even if it meant that you would not get to date hundreds of women a year?

 

Why not stand up for your beliefs instead of whining complaining that other people don't share them?

 

Read your post #1843. That IS disruptive. It was a blatant exaggeration and mischaracterization of what some posters in this thread have said, and it did not further the conversation going on here whatsoever. If it had come from a new poster instead of you, it would've been characterized as trolling.

[tbf]

That and "sue the women who slander you." Only on LS.

 

These discussions are all the same. First they get to the "inequity" argument, for which there is no reasonable retort in the year 2013. Then they shift to the "it's really no big deal, only a few dates, so the inequity is trivial." Then once actual pen is put to paper demonstrating lots of potential inequitable expense over time for men, we shift to "well if you don't like it don't do it." Then to the "if we don't do it we get blackballed and slandered" retort...

 

"sue them."

 

God forbid anyone threatens any side dish of "advantage" on the female cafeteria plan of distorted "equality" today. They will fight tooth and claw like cornered beasts over every scrap of past advantage, usually irrationally. "I'll have some equal pay, and for dessert, a serving of 'he pays' too! Yum!" It's like the overeaters who get two helpings of tiramisu and rationalize it by drinking diet coke.

That's because you take the monocular view of male entitlement.

 

Men don't have to pay for first dates and women don't have look their best. But both run the risk of losing the interest of the person they wish to continue dating. Both run the risk of being "slandered" post date where the man is accused of being cheap and the woman, not as attractive as the man had originally thought, whether OLD or in real life. This sounds like social equality to me.

[TheBigQuestion]

But if it's honestly as important a social inequality issue that it's conflated to be on LS, why wouldn't legals like yourself be willing and chuffed to have a platform to go the tort route since it's the opportunity for some serious P/R over a supposed social inequality issue?

 

Why wouldn't I take on a case like that? Take a look at this thread. The attitudes expressed within it, i.e. an expectation that men pay for dates and that the absence of such action on his part makes him a cheapskate and is conduct unbecoming of a gentleman, are the attitudes of the mainstream press. I wouldn't get a podunk local newspaper to cover such a case, let alone cover it favorably in their editorials. Lawyers and their clients are (or at least aspire to be) rational actors. Not every battle is worth fighting via the legal system. Seriously.

[fortyninethousand322]

The last date I went on back in May, I paid for her coffee (3 dollars). She ordered and then kind of walked away leaving me to pay. I was going to pay anyway, it just struck me as weird the way she handled it.

 

In any case, paying for dates is annoying only when nothing ends up happening. Like you only see each other once or twice and then never again. Not that I expect a slew of dates just because I paid or anything though.

 

I guess it's kind of like buying a lottery ticket. If you win something, you feel pretty good about it. If you don't, you feel like you wasted 2 dollars.