Consolidated Discussion - Paying for Dates

[tbf]

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.

The Daily Mail loves two bit stories like this.

[dasein]

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.

 

I've had to listen to women endlessly going on about social injustice done to them in the furtherance of lobbying goals seeking advantage for women my whole life, and for decades listened patiently. Now when it becomes evident that the aforementioned decades long wailing, gnashing of teeth and sackcloth wearing were never about any reasonable definition of equality, but mere $$ and advantage, and when any complaints about any inequitable results of it for men are met with "Ah, no big deal, just ignore it and move on?"

 

No.

 

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?

 

It was a first date, and you, I and everyone here in this thread knows that suggesting dutch before a first date is a deal-killer for a vast majority of women out there. In 2013, it shouldn't be, but it is. So even suggesting such as an option for men who are annoyed with the prevailing "equality cafeteria plan" for women's benefit is very much the equivalent of "let them eat cake." You know it. I know it.

[fortyninethousand322]

As far as the male vs female part of it, I take the Smith/Hayek spontaneous order perspective. Behavioral patterns are a market, with preferable behaviors enduring and unfavorable behaviors not. The expectation that men pay is a product of that market process.

 

The "social justice" insinuations are just nonsense. Because the concept itself is nonsensical. Actions in that context are not just or unjust, they just are.

[TheBigQuestion]

That's your opinion. My dad raised my brothers to consider it gentlemanly to treat women.

 

Same with my bf. But he does this with ALL women, not just the ones he might want to have sex with or date.

 

Oh -

 

That's great. My parents raised me to do the same thing, and even though they meant well and are lovely people, that doesn't preclude me from using experience and reason to form a contrary viewpoint.

[tbf]

I've had to listen to women endlessly going on about social injustice done to them in the furtherance of lobbying goals seeking advantage for women my whole life, and for decades listened patiently. Now when it becomes evident that the aforementioned decades long wailing, gnashing of teeth and sackcloth wearing were never about any reasonable definition of equality, but mere $$ and advantage, and when any complaints about any inequitable results of it for men are met with "Ah, no big deal, just ignore it and move on?"

Then lobby for laws surrounding first date payment if you feel so strongly about it being an issue of social inequality.

 

It was a first date, and you, I and everyone here in this thread knows that suggesting dutch before a first date is a deal-killer for a vast majority of women out there. In 2013, it shouldn't be, but it is. So even suggesting such as an option for men who are annoyed with the prevailing "equality cafeteria plan" for women's benefit is very much the equivalent of "let them eat cake." You know it. I know it.

Once again, entitlement. "I'm entitled to date who I want, even though we don't share values and she's turned off by my values".

[TheBigQuestion]

 

It was a first date, and you, I and everyone here in this thread knows that suggesting dutch before a first date is a deal-killer for a vast majority of women out there. In 2013, it shouldn't be, but it is..

 

Duh. Plenty of women said so in this very thread.

[Mascara]

 

It was a first date, and you, I and everyone here in this thread knows that suggesting dutch before a first date is a deal-killer for a vast majority of women out there. In 2013, it shouldn't be, but it is. So even suggesting such as an option for men who are annoyed with the prevailing "equality cafeteria plan" for women's benefit is very much the equivalent of "let them eat cake." You know it. I know it.

 

Then that's a choice you made. You didn't have to date her, or indeed anyone else.

[TheBigQuestion]

Then lobby for laws surrounding first date payment if you feel so strongly about it being an issue of social inequality.

 

Once again, entitlement. "I'm entitled to date who I want, even though we don't share values and she's turned off by my values".

 

How is it entitlement when his expectation is equality?

[tbf]

The "social justice" insinuations are just nonsense.

This summarizes it completely. No one is entitled to dating anyone else. If they're incompatible, that's life.

[tbf]

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.

 

How is it entitlement when his expectation is equality?

Refer to above.

[Mascara]

How is it entitlement when his expectation is equality?

 

His expectation isn't equality. He expected to pay, so he's as much a part of the "problem".

 

Honestly, if he'd answered my question with "I truly expected that we'd go Dutch, but she looked at me with such disgust that I paid, but vowed never to see her again", I would have respected him. Instead, he just bleated out the predictable "yes I paid, but it's women's fault".

 

I have no respect for anything further he has to say. He actively chose to take her out, knowing full well he'd pay. He could have chosen to stay home instead.

[Southern Cal Dude]

How come this is never an issue IRL? I don't date passive women and don't have these issues.

[TheBigQuestion]

His expectation isn't equality. He expected to pay, so he's as much a part of the "problem".

 

Honestly, if he'd answered my question with "I truly expected that we'd go Dutch, but she looked at me with such disgust that I paid, but vowed never to see her again", I would have respected him. Instead, he just bleated out the predictable "yes I paid, but it's women's fault".

 

I have no respect for anything further he has to say. He actively chose to take her out, knowing full well he'd pay. He could have chosen to stay home instead.

 

What you're forgetting is that for a lot of men, especially those raised in more traditional households, they do not even know that going Dutch is a viable option. This is further reinforced when so many women go on about how men who don't conform to this social norm are cheapskates or fail to be gentlemen.

[Mascara]

What you're forgetting is that for a lot of men, especially those raised in more traditional households, they do not even know that going Dutch is a viable option. This is further reinforced when so many women go on about how men who don't conform to this social norm are cheapskates or fail to be gentlemen.

 

Precisely. I'm trying to reeducate those young men.

[TheBigQuestion]

Precisely. I'm trying to reeducate those young men.

 

By painting those who are arguing against the social norm as merely being bitter over not getting dates and/or relationships?

[dasein]

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

 

Whatever that means, no.

 

Men don't have to pay for first dates and women don't have look their best.

 

Bad logic. Women looking their best for dates is analogous to... get ready... men looking their best for dates. Looking one's best for a date does not entail a new dress, a $500 dye job, $300 purse, $400 shoes... It entails being clean and well-groomed, just as it does for men.

 

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.

 

Yet we have thread after thread after thread containing posts and posts where men are slandered... right in the threads... for complaining about the "man pays" presumption. Right here in this thread. Cheap calling abounds on LS, and that's a small microcosm of what's done IRL.

 

OTOH, where the threads and posts where men complaining a woman didn't look as good as she could have due to not spending enough money on clothes, makeup or whatever to prepare herself for a date? Really?

[TheBigQuestion]

Nothing is completely equal when it comes to men and women.

 

Men don't get pregnant. In this day and age, we women struggle with judgment when deciding whether to stay home or continue working. Our eggs have a much shorter shelf life. On average we make less in the workplace. We are generally physically weaker. On the whole we have to spend more on clothes, bras, tampons, birth control, haircuts, and grooming products. We get raped more than you do. Up until very recently, we were considered property and had no rights outside of our husbands and fathers, who didn't always have our best interests at heart. We bleed 5 days out of the month (that's fun!).

 

Shall I go on?

 

The way some of you post in these threads it sounds like you wish you had been born a woman with all of our "special" treatment in life! LOL!

 

How is any of this relevant again? We are talking about ONE issue here. If you want to start a pissing contest over who has it worse overall (i.e. blatantly trying to start a gender war), I'm sure you could do so in another thread.

[dasein]

This summarizes it completely. No one is entitled to dating anyone else. If they're incompatible, that's life.

 

I see so one day, a guy whose had three dates in life doesn't know enough about dating to be taken seriously by you, yet today, when he agrees with you, oh how things change? About the size of it, right?

[tbf]

Whatever that means, no.

Denial doesn't change the fact that it's obvious.

 

Bad logic. Women looking their best for dates is analogous to... get ready... men looking their best for dates. Looking one's best for a date does not entail a new dress, a $500 dye job, $300 purse, $400 shoes... It entails being clean and well-groomed, just as it does for men.

Bad logic. Men don't put in near as much cost or effort as women in prepping for dates. That's fact if viewed from a generality perspective of biological genders.

 

Yet we have thread after thread after thread containing posts and posts where men are slandered... right in the threads... for complaining about the "man pays" presumption. Right here in this thread. Cheap calling abounds on LS, and that's a small microcosm of what's done IRL.

If you look back, all these threads were started by men who have axes to grind about paying. You're only focusing on the entitled male side where none of this would be an issue if the men who don't wish to pay, don't pay.

 

OTOH, where the threads and posts where men complaining a woman didn't look as good as she could have due to not spending enough money on clothes, makeup or whatever to prepare herself for a date? Really?

Because the majority of women don't whine about every date that didn't go the way they wanted. We expect to prep for dates.

[TheBigQuestion]

I'm not - the issue of "equality" has been brought up in this thread repeatedly.

 

Women have been clamoring for fair social treatment by members of the opposite sex, not just for equitable legal treatment, for several decades now. There's nothing precluding a man from doing the same, and that's really the only thing that's gone on in this thread. Well, that and a couple of childish, inflammatory disruptions.

[dasein]

I think the crux of the matter is they're annoyed that they're not getting laid, or any other kind of success with the women they want.

 

Think we might be addressing the wrong issue here... maybe we should be helping these guys out with their hair cuts or something.

 

I have no trouble getting women at all, in any way I want them. Nor does tbq. So who are you talking about? Or was that just the standard "bypass reason to the feeble shaming attempt" point of this discussion?

[TheBigQuestion]

If you look back, all these threads were started by men who have axes to grind about paying. You're only focusing on the entitled male side where none of this would be an issue if the men who don't wish to pay, don't pay.

 

It doesn't matter who started the threads. The shaming and name-calling is unwarranted and inexcusable.

[Mascara]

It doesn't matter who started the threads. The shaming and name-calling is unwarranted and inexcusable.

 

I quite agree, the idea of women only being after free meals, dating "chumps" to save themselves thousands a year, gold digging for a free burger.... it has to stop.

 

Finally, we agree (look, another smiley!)

[TheBigQuestion]

Tut, then you're not using them correctly.

 

So you don't actually think that men who dislike the social norm of having to pay for dates have thoroughly unsatisfying dating lives? That's good to know, because if you did, you'd be wrong.

[TheBigQuestion]

I quite agree, the idea of women only being after free meals, dating "chumps" to save themselves thousands a year, gold digging for a free burger.... it has to stop.

 

Finally, we agree (look, another smiley!)

 

And yet, I've never actually said anything about women being golddiggers or only being after free meals.