Consolidated Discussion - Paying for Dates

[tbf]

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

So you believe that women should just sit back and accept the gold digging and silly social inequality shaming about first date paying? It's flat out obvious why men who posit the social inequality/slandering don't go the tort route. It's because they know they've conflated with and trivialized social inequality and that every court in the land would laugh them off the bar since first dates cost both genders and if both genders didn't play their part in the social ritual, that they both risk second dates and negative opinions.

[dasein]

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

 

I'd rather complain about it here, as many people complain about various things here, yourself included, without being given the tossoff asinine reply to "go to court" or "write your congressman."

 

Perhaps you'll be dispensing that type of advice to others on the dating board? "He doesn't want me to get another parakeet." "SUE HIM!" "A guy has been sending my GF suggestive texts." "LOBBY FOR CHANGE!" "My BF snores too much." "WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN!"

 

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".

 

I'm entitled to consideration of the last 100 years of technological and social development, or a reasonable conception of equality as a whole, not as a privileged "pick and choose" rationale for picking my pockets and lining theirs. If I express such, I'm entitled not to be slandered for it.

[tbf]

I'd rather complain about it here, as many people complain about various things here, yourself included, without being given the tossoff asinine reply to "go to court" or "write your congressman."

 

Perhaps you'll be dispensing that type of advice to others on the dating board? "He doesn't want me to get another parakeet." "SUE HIM!" "A guy has been sending my GF suggestive texts." "LOBBY FOR CHANGE!" "My BF snores too much." "WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN!"

Women went to court, paraded and lobbied for their social equality issues. So why can't you?

 

I'm entitled to consideration of the last 100 years of technological and social development, or a reasonable conception of equality as a whole, not as a privileged "pick and choose" rationale for picking my pockets and lining theirs. If I express such, I'm entitled not to be slandered for it.

While completely disregarding not only the cost that women put into first dates but all the effort to looking good.

 

What you're doing is to completely disregard the woman's cost in order to pontificate about social inequality, with the attempt to shame women into agreeing. But the reality of it is that there's social equality in dating, particularly as it pertains to cost.

[TheBigQuestion]

So you believe that women should just sit back and accept the gold digging and silly social inequality shaming about first date paying? It's flat out obvious why men who posit the social inequality/slandering don't go the tort route. It's because they know they've conflated with and trivialized social inequality and that every court in the land would laugh them off the bar since first dates cost both genders and if both genders didn't play their part in the social ritual, that they both risk second dates and negative opinions.

 

In case you haven't noticed, the replies where men are shamed and insulted for not paying on dates are NOT directed solely at posters who question the social norm. They talk about men who do not pay IN GENERAL of being cheapskates and ungentlemanly. They cite with contempt actual examples from their lives where men asked to go Dutch with them. It's also inaccurate to equate those who question the norm with those who engage in shaming women for being golddiggers.

 

You obviously also can't tell your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to law. Defamation has a very well-defined set of elements that must be proved, and a discussion of "social equality" doesn't figure into it at all.

[crude]

Since stereotypes and sexism are so deeply ingrained, all we can do is reverse the genders. If a woman came on here and said she asks men out, pays for all the dates, was called cheap for a coffee shop date that only cost $20, is going on vacation with a new guy and paying the entire cost, has men on OLD date her a few times for the freebees, then say no chemistry when she wants more, how would the replies go?

You have no self respect, you deserve better, those men aren't good enough for you, they don't care about you, they're users, you need some self esteem, etc etc. When men are the dopes who do all the dirty work while women use men, somehow that's ok, and the users are called ladies. Women have decided to define romantic as the man paying for everything. If being paid for is so romantic and makes women feel like ladies, hookers must have the greatest lives.

[TheBigQuestion]

I think that people in the legal profession at least know the difference between "slander" and "libel," and that defamation of character can't occur on an anonymous forum. Which seems to be rife with fake lawyers.

 

I don't think anyone said anything about defamation occurring over the internet. The whole discussion began because tbf suggested that women who call a guy cheap in real life for not paying should lead to the guy suing her for defamation.

[tbf]

In case you haven't noticed, the replies where men are shamed and insulted for not paying on dates are NOT directed solely at men who question the social norm. They talk about men who do not pay IN GENERAL of being cheapskates and ungentlemanly. They cite with contempt actual examples from their lives where men asked to go Dutch with them. It's also inaccurate to equate those who question the norm with those who engage in shaming women for being golddiggers.

 

You obviously also can't tell your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to law. Defamation has a very well-defined set of elements that must be proved, and a discussion of "social equality" doesn't figure into it at all.

Let's deconstruct your logic.

 

First paragraph says that women shame men for not paying for first dates, completely ignoring the women who've chimed in during past discussions about paying or argue without shaming. It also disregards the gold digging term that populates all these threads. Monocular vision anyone?

 

Second paragraph then jumps into defamation from a legal perspective, completely disregarding that it was dasein that initiated the usage of the legal term "slander" which as you're well aware, is in essence a non-sequitur, based on what you've stated.

[dasein]

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

 

Not understanding what "monocular view" means is not on me. Did you mean "myopic?" And now I'm in "denial."

 

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.

 

It's an oft repeated cliche retort with little if any underpinning truth. Fact is, "from a generality perspective of biological genders" men don't care about lots of the accoutrement women try to slide into the "mine's more expensive" canard, so that spending is solely on the women in question.

 

If you look back, all these threads were started by men who have axes to grind about paying.

 

Or they start the threads because it's an archaic, inequitable social norm among many that define the nature of what "equality" really is in the minds of many women, "everything beneficial we want today combined with all the outdated benefits of the past too." All get, little give, and threads like this make the inflexibility and privilege in that attitude abundantly clear.

[tbf]

Not understanding what "monocular view" means is not on me. Did you mean "myopic?" And now I'm in "denial."

I used monocular since it amuses me to visualize the one eyed squinting.

 

It's an oft repeated cliche retort with little if any underpinning truth. Fact is, "from a generality perspective of biological genders" men don't care about lots of the accoutrement women try to slide into the "mine's more expensive" canard, so that spending is solely on the women in question.

That's because men have no idea of the difference in visual effect that cost can create. You're also presuming that women demand expensive dates where you'll find it's more on the man for trying to impress the woman with expensive dates. Two can play your game of attempted minimalization.

 

Or they start the threads because it's an archaic, inequitable social norm among many that define the nature of what "equality" really is in the minds of many women, "everything beneficial we want today combined with all the outdated benefits of the past too." All get, little give, and threads like this make the inflexibility and privilege in that attitude abundantly clear.

More shaming, more rigidity, more disregarding the woman's cost and effort for first dates. Monocular vision.

[fortyninethousand322]

What if paying on dates guaranteed sex? I'm being serious.

 

Well on the one hand that sounds kind of like prostitution, but I think maybe if paying guaranteed a second date (or a third in such a case) that probably would be a lot easier to take for some people.

 

Honestly, I figure paying is a part of being a guy. But I'm a young guy who isn't very rich (in fact quite the opposite). So I'll pay, but it'll be a lot of Chipotle or coffee dates, maybe a picnic on a nice day. Anything above 20 dollars is going to be completely out of the question.

 

I think the joy of my company can more than make up for that.

[TheBigQuestion]

Let's deconstruct your logic.

 

First paragraph says that women shame men for not paying for first dates, completely ignoring the women who've chimed in during past discussions about paying or argue without shaming. It also disregards the gold digging term that populates all these threads. Monocular vision anyone?

 

Second paragraph then jumps into defamation from a legal perspective, completely disregarding that it was dasein that initiated the usage of the legal term "slander" which as you're well aware, is in essence a non-sequitur, based on what you've stated.

 

I recognize that not every woman who posts here engages in this behavior. Yet plenty of them do. Do you expect me to explicitly qualify all of my statements like this? I'm obviously not addressing women who don't shame and insult men when I'm discussing women that do.

 

You are the one who has been suggesting to me for a few pages now that suing a woman for defamation for calling a man cheap is a viable means of setting the spotlight on "dating equality." I explained that, while it's possible to do so, it's a timely, costly endeavor, and the likelihood of its success depends heavily on the unique facts of the case. You made some bizarre argument that any such case would be laughed out of court (not true) and that social inequality arguments had something to do with it. This is simply not the case, and even a quick google search would've produced that result.

[dasein]

Women went to court, paraded and lobbied for their social equality issues. So why can't you?

 

They also gripe and whine to this day about imaginary things that don't even exist any more in places like this, not just in court, so I'll reserve the right to gripe and whine about a very real dating issue on the dating forum if that's ok by you.

 

What you're doing is to completely disregard the woman's cost in order to pontificate about social inequality, with the attempt to shame women into agreeing. But the reality of it is that there's social equality in dating, particularly as it pertains to cost.

 

What you are doing is 1. attempting an analogy that is inapt in the first place, female date hygeine and appearance is analogous to male hygeine and appearance, that's the valid analogy, and 2. As usual in these types of discussions, expecting platitudes about women paying more to look good will be accepted wholesale unquestioned. Women, not men care whether the label on the can says "La Mer" or "Noxema." Same for almost all the bogus "greater female dating prep" categories.

[Mascara]

 

That's because men have no idea of the difference in visual effect that cost can create.

 

I've long believed that when men say "I prefer a woman who wears no makeup and doesn't dress up", what they actually mean is "I want to believe she doesn't need to make an effort to look amazing".

 

This was a recent newspaper feature. Men who said they preferred no makeup/dressing up were shown the same woman in five states, from "completely natural" to "red carpet ready". Most preferred around number 3 or 4. They just wanted to believe that's how she REALLY looked.

[fortyninethousand322]

I've long believed that when men say "I prefer a woman who wears no makeup and doesn't dress up", what they actually mean is "I want to believe she doesn't need to make an effort to look amazing".

 

This was a recent newspaper feature. Men who said they preferred no makeup/dressing up were shown the same woman in five states, from "completely natural" to "red carpet ready". Most preferred around number 3 or 4. They just wanted to believe that's how she REALLY looked.

 

I don't know, I prefer women to look however they want to look I guess.

 

I'm still kind of in love with a girl I used to "date" in college. She only wore eyeliner, nothing else. Or at least that's what she told me. She certainly didn't seem to wear much makeup.

 

She also only wore jeans with various different tops. And only owned two pairs of shoes (beat up sketchers). But honestly, something about her was just magical I guess.

[tbf]

I recognize that not every woman who posts here engages in this behavior. Yet plenty of them do. Do you expect me to explicitly qualify all of my statements like this? I'm obviously not addressing women who don't shame and insult men when I'm discussing women that do.

Then address those women directly. We're talking about paying for first dates where some believe one thing, others believe another.

 

You are the one who has been suggesting to me for a few pages now that suing a woman for defamation for calling a man cheap is a viable means of setting the spotlight on "dating equality." I explained that, while it's possible to do so, it's a timely, costly endeavor, and the likelihood of its success depends heavily on the unique facts of the case. You made some bizarre argument that any such case would be laughed out of court (not true) and that social inequality arguments had something to do with it. This is simply not the case, and even a quick google search would've produced that result.

The initial premise of slander was raised by dasein. So follow along with the path of how the discussion morphed.

 

If you believe that the courts wouldn't laugh it out, then proceed with a tort solution if you believe this to be a social inequality issue and that it's a matter of slander. After all, we women have pursued social equality through tort, lobbying and parading. So why can't men do the same for their supposed social inequality issue for first date paying and presumed slander.

 

I'll reserve the right to gripe and whine about a very real dating issue on the dating forum if that's ok by you.

Excellent. So you've finally admitted that you're griping and whining! There's hope for you yet.

 

What you are doing is 1. attempting an analogy that is inapt in the first place, female date hygeine and appearance is analogous to male hygeine and appearance, that's the valid analogy, and 2. As usual in these types of discussions, expecting platitudes about women paying more to look good will be accepted wholesale unquestioned. Women, not men care whether the label on the can says "La Mer" or "Noxema." Same for almost all the bogus "greater female dating prep" categories.

This displays blatant male ignorance in the female prepping process, if you believe that cost can't buy a difference in appearance.

 

Men are visual. That's been proven time and again in studies, when it comes to arousal.

 

So women on first dates display enhanced visual effect and men on first dates, display their enhanced generosity. If the woman doesn't bother on the first date, she won't necessarily attract a mate. If a man shows he's not generous, incapable of sharing, he won't necessarily attract a mate. If you perceive it from this perspective, dating is still a reptilian mind process. Now if you wish for society to come out of the reptilian mind process, men won't select for visual and women won't select for generosity, right?

[dasein]

I think that people in the legal profession at least know the difference between "slander" and "libel," and that defamation of character can't occur on an anonymous forum. Which seems to be rife with fake lawyers.

 

Which is worse, fake lawyers or real pedants? "Slander" is a general term in addition to a legal one, and when the topic includes complaints of women slandering men IRL, use of it here also is entirely reasonable.

 

This topic only went into the legal realm when someone made and remade the silly "go to court" and "make a law" retorts to a -dating- issue, and that wasn't me.

[tbf]

This topic only went into the legal realm when someone made and remade the silly "go to court" and "make a law" retorts to a -dating- issue, and that wasn't me.

Is this where I pipe up about shaming and ridiculing, being hurt about it?

[thefooloftheyear]

As a high net worth individual I find it embarrassing to allow someone else to pay..I do have traditional thinking in that its the guys responsibility to pay for a date..NO, that doesnt mean anything is expected in return....

 

Now. To play some stupid game as another poster suggested, by offering to pay, then if the guy let you, then (as the guy) you would be immediately tossed in the trash for not overruling her request to pay, is just silly..Its a dumb game..

 

Frankly she wouldnt ever get the chance anyway...Normally when I request a check, I never even look at it, I just hand the server my card and let them run it through....(shrug)..

 

TFY

[dasein]

Is this where I pipe up about shaming and ridiculing, being hurt about it?

 

It's where you should drop the legalism. Repetition of that is not doing your argument any favors. As just posted, slander is not only a legal term, but a common one with a common meaning, "damaging someone's reputation by disparaging them untruthfully to third parties." Defamation, tort, libel are more legal terms, none of which I have used here, you did. I don't see other threads here on dating issues met with a ridiculous, repeated, "go to court" argument, yet you are persisting in this. I even preempted the argument, and tbq also addressed it with "good luck going to court on this."

 

And really, the "you know it would be laughed out of court" rationalization is just another way of saying "don't complain about your place on the bus in 1950s Alabama. No one will listen to you."

 

As far as me "griping and whining" about this issue. Sure, guilty as charged. Doesn't change that it's a real issue worthy of griping and whining about. But all the tort talk about a social issue highlights my repeated point in this thread, some women will say anything, no matter how ludicrous and absurd, in clinging to some social advantage they know full well is archaic today.

[fortyninethousand322]

As a high net worth individual I find it embarrassing to allow someone else to pay..I do have traditional thinking in that its the guys responsibility to pay for a date..NO, that doesnt mean anything is expected in return....

 

Now. To play some stupid game as another poster suggested, by offering to pay, then if the guy let you, then (as the guy) you would be immediately tossed in the trash for not overruling her request to pay, is just silly..Its a dumb game..

 

Frankly she wouldnt ever get the chance anyway...Normally when I request a check, I never even look at it, I just hand the server my card and let them run it through....(shrug)..

 

TFY

 

Yeah I always get confused about that. Like, do I let her pay if she insists? Or do I fight her for the check?

 

The girl I "dated" back in college, she bought food for us a bunch of times, but I also paid for things (like the pool table the time we played pool) and I often shared my lunch with her (which I brought from home).

 

But when I told a friend of mine this (who was a girl herself) she told me to never let a girl pay for anything. That I should fight her for the check if need be. That women "often" offer to pay as a "test".

 

I'd like to think that's not the case, but you know, it's confusing to me.

[tbf]

As far as whether there should be laws, there are laws, slander is a form of defamation.

 

Defamation, tort, libel are more legal terms, none of which I have used here, you did.

Refer to above. You're the first person to bring slander and defamation into this thread, this morning. Backpedaling would be a...lie.

[thefooloftheyear]

Yeah I always get confused about that. Like, do I let her pay if she insists? Or do I fight her for the check?

 

The girl I "dated" back in college, she bought food for us a bunch of times, but I also paid for things (like the pool table the time we played pool) and I often shared my lunch with her (which I brought from home).

 

But when I told a friend of mine this (who was a girl herself) she told me to never let a girl pay for anything. That I should fight her for the check if need be. That women "often" offer to pay as a "test".

 

I'd like to think that's not the case, but you know, it's confusing to me.

 

 

I dunno...Ive never been "tested"(that I am aware of)..that seems ridiculous and childish..What a stupid game..

 

Most women I would be in contact with usually arent on the breadline..I thnk many just want to feel like they dont have a problem with paying..(shrug)..

 

I like to think I am a no BS type of person...If you want to play gemes- go to Chuck -E -Cheese...You can play all the games you want..

 

TFY

[thefooloftheyear]

OMG you're such a chump!! When are you ever gonna LEARN?

 

Oh well.....

 

TFY

[dasein]

So women on first dates display enhanced visual effect and men on first dates, display their enhanced generosity.

 

Keep repeating the bad analogy over and over, maybe it will turn true. A vast majority of early dates today are jeans and blouse affairs, not trips to the grand ball. The cheapest jeans and blouse dates can still cost $20-40 each or more for the man, and those costs add up over several dates that may or may not continue at any moment.

 

If she just has to have that certain shade of color from the tres chic colorist, has to have a french wrap or whatever nail fashion du jour instead of painting her own nails, a bikini wax instead of a disposable razor, that's -all- on her. Same for a man who feels he needs to have a Porsche to attract women, all on him. Imagine the result if such a man came here and tried to parse out the expense of that Porsche per date as a dating necessity because "women respond to money" like "men are more visual."

 

Talk about being laughed out of court.

[tbf]

Keep repeating the bad analogy over and over, maybe it will turn true.

Applying the same logic, needing to go on expensive dates and paying for it, is all on the man since he's trying to impress the woman through his display of generosity.