Dinner *****

[D'Art]

Originally Posted by achilleus

It is repulsive, and the only guys I've ever met that think that tend to be young, inexperienced, don't get dates often, and seem to be in the minority.

Not where I am. most of the guys here seem to think that, for some reason, and a lot of the same guys have a different woman every night. Might be because these are the same ones who do this :-

Originally Posted by achilleus

men who sleep with women, even though they don't want a relationship, or aren't interested in the woman.

Mind you, where I live is a ****-hole...

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Larrison

Eh! Good point.. but hmm... I'd say no. Geishas are entertainers, and the perspective of these girls is not to entertain you, but that you are there to enhance their social life, not the other way around.. So .. not geishas.

so......... yeah.


perhaps you're shelling out money to be their geisha? but not quite either...........

*sigh*

[cornflower]

Originally Posted by Black Jeebus

Oh you just lost so many cool points in my book.

It's the "they have no interests at all in the guy" that bugs me though.

Well, I'd go out only with guys I was interested in. I don't like food THAT MUCH to have to go through an excruciatingly boring and uncomfortable dinner.

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

so......... yeah.


perhaps you're shelling out money to be their geisha? but not quite either...........

*sigh*

*wry smile* Pain to be human, isn't it MP? Seriously, I've dated a couple of "Saturday Night" girls over the years. If you're at a point in your life where work is highly demanding, they're not bad to have someone to go out with one night and know that they won't try to fill the rest of your calendar. And always better to go out and have company, than eat alone. And of course, they are an ornament for public social situations, such as business dinner and cocktail parties, etc. But I found them to not be for me in the end..

I can see a few situations where someone might have a long term relationship with a person like this, and perhaps even get "married" to one. I've a couple of acquaintances where the two halves of the partnership have very demanding jobs, and neither has compromised any of their professional desires and energy for a family. So one or both is always working late at the office or traveling somewhere on business, and the other has a full professional life -- and of course, they go to expensive and trendy places for vacation, and have very nice cars and clothes, and etc. So they've found their opposite number, and are comfortable in that.. but neither has been willing to change their personal life more than the minimum to accomodate another person in it.

[Zelda]

Originally Posted by latenight

Well I'm in Chicago this week......heh

Darling - you know if I could get away I would! ;-)

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Today's New York Post has an article (http://www.nypost.com/living/61368.htm) on the "Dinner Wh*re" phenomenon, about women who go out for dinner dates with zero intention of ever sleeping with or having any kind of relationship with the man who takes them out. Just getting free meals from dates...

Epee_Pox,

Like you I am married, and slightly ammused by this topic. If, God forbid, I should find myself single again -- I simply don't think this would be a problem. I say that because, based on much of the content of this thread, I think expectations are very age dependent.

Look at who is asking whom out, and the ensuing expectations. If a guy was asking a gal to dinner with the expectation of sleeping with her based on merely having had dinner -- well, he gets what he deserves. If he is lucky, he will take a gal to dinner who is looking for a free meal with no strings -- and he will be disappointed. On the other hand, if he finds a female who is, in fact, willing to have a roll in the hay for a dinner, she might well be a human petrie dish; foaming and fizzing in the nether regions -- once again, he will be disappointed (albeit at a later date). I am just stunned that some guys have the expectation that this will lead to a successful outcome.....like an attractive and respectable woman is going to say, "I know this is our first date, but you know, that was the best fillet of sole I've had in eons -- let's go to your place and boink."

As a former 20-something single guy, I full well know the ability of young guys to rationalize any thought or action in the never-ending quest. I have a feeling it is that young male reader who most identifies with that article, and only time, experience -- and becoming the father of TWO DAUGHTERS -- will change their perspective.

Regards,
Feltan

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

A meal for nothing is a bad trade. A meal for sex is a good trade. Mind you, this kind of thing is not up my alley, but the girl should atleast give him head.

[annacattiva]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

A meal for nothing is a bad trade. A meal for sex is a good trade. Mind you, this kind of thing is not up my alley, but the girl should atleast give him head.

Um... How about a meal for good company and a pleasant evening? Basically you've just said that all women who are willing to accept dinner from a man should be prostitutes. Anybody who expects any kind of sex just because they paid for dinner... we'll, I'm not saying that they should deliberately get played by anyone who can, but I'm not entirely sympathetic either.

[Amadeus]

Originally Posted by annacattiva

Um... How about a meal for good company and a pleasant evening? Basically you've just said that all women who are willing to accept dinner from a man should be prostitutes. Anybody who expects any kind of sex just because they paid for dinner... we'll, I'm not saying that they should deliberately get played by anyone who can, but I'm not entirely sympathetic either.

look. dinner costs money. sex is free. you guys win anyway, so what's your beef?

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

look. dinner costs money. sex is free. you guys win anyway, so what's your beef?

sex is NOT free.

women are the ones who bear the largest part of the burdon of childrearing in most cases, even taking childsupport or two parent homes........ not to mention the risk of STDs. not to mention the opportunity cost (economics term)-- if i can earn $7.75 an hour in my work study job, an hour of sex/sexual related things is worth AT LEAST $7.75.


but the worst part of it all is that americans, and people in a variety of other similar cultures, grow up with a belief that sex is something that guys somehow "deserve" sex. a culture where men think that they can do ANYTHING to "deserve" sex tends to lead to a culture where men TAKE the sex that they think they deserve. which is called "rape", and most people tend to think it's a bad thing.


some scary statistics:

Originally Posted by SATRC

QUESTION: Does a man/woman on a date have the right to sexual intercourse against their date's consent if he/she spent a lot of money on the date? Yes, No, or I Don't Know?

In 1988, 24% of boys and 16% of girls, grades 7 - 9, responded Yes to this question.
In 1998, 23% of boys and 20% of girls in grade 9 responded Yes to this question.

QUESTION: Does a man/woman on a date have a right to sexual intercourse against their date's consent if they have had intercourse before? Yes, No, or I Don't Know?

In 1988, 70% of boys and 54% of girls, grades 7 - 9, responded Yes to this question.
In 1998, 70% of boys and 53% of girls in grade 9 responded Yes to this question.

QUESTION: Does a man have the right to sexual intercourse against the woman's consent if they are married? Yes, No, or I Don't Know?

In 1988, 87% of boys and 79% of girls, grades 7 - 9, responded Yes to this question.
In 1998, 73% of boys and 78% of girls in grade 9 responded Yes to this question.

further info and methodology @ http://www.satrc.org/surveys.htm


It should be noted, however, that the answer to all three of those questions is NO.

No one ever has the right to any sexual favor against someone's consent. That is called rape.

believe me, this is one of those arguments you don't want to get into with me. it's this, and matthew shepherd getting killed. everything else i can argue and i won't take it personally. this one....... this one i battle as if my life depends on it...

because it does.

BTW, for my senior year of high school statistics project, i recreated this study, looking at seniors and freshmen, and had some surveys that had "against the woman's consent" and some without....... I don't have the info in front of me, but i remember that just about the ONLY statistically significant data i found was that there was a strong correlation between people who's parents were divorced and people who thought that a man has the right to sexual intercourse with his wife............

[Zilverzmurfen]

Excellent post, MP. Cheers.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

sex is NOT free.

women are the ones who bear the largest part of the burdon of childrearing in most cases, even taking childsupport or two parent homes........ not to mention the risk of STDs. not to mention the opportunity cost (economics term)-- if i can earn $7.75 an hour in my work study job, an hour of sex/sexual related things is worth AT LEAST $7.75.

Bad rebuttal, where there are far better ones. In the case suggested by DFP (showing his age-dependent immaturity again, sigh) the child support issue is moot, and it could be argued that the monetary issue is covered by the cost of the provided food. In any case, the monetary issue becomes moot if the guy is willing to pay separately the asked rate.

MP, this is a good example of bad argument for a good cause. Since you obviously have been doing some thinking on the topic (see below) I will leave it to you to come up with a better rebuttal to DFP, which should not be an insurmountable task.

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

but the worst part of it all is that americans, and people in a variety of other similar cultures, grow up with a belief that sex is something that guys somehow "deserve" sex. a culture where men think that they can do ANYTHING to "deserve" sex tends to lead to a culture where men TAKE the sex that they think they deserve. which is called "rape", and most people tend to think it's a bad thing.

some scary statistics:
Stats snipped
further info and methodology @ http://www.satrc.org/surveys.htm

It should be noted, however, that the answer to all three of those questions is NO.

No one ever has the right to any sexual favor against someone's consent. That is called rape.

I happen to agree with you here, MP. The number of yes answers among males is surprisinly high, and it saddens me that I seem to not be in a overwhelming majority of no/no/no voters. What to me is even more surprising, though, is the large number of yes votes among females - I would have expected percentages below 10% in all questions there! What is up with that?

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

BTW, for my senior year of high school statistics project, I recreated this study, looking at seniors and freshmen, and had some surveys that had "against the woman's consent" and some without....... I don't have the info in front of me, but i remember that just about the ONLY statistically significant data I found was that there was a strong correlation between people who's parents were divorced and people who thought that a man has the right to sexual intercourse with his wife............

Even more surprises. Do you have any explanation for the between correlation between parental divorce and "against woman´s consent" acceptance? Do you think that either one causes the other, both are effects of a common root cause, or that the correlation is spurious - that is, not linked to any causation at all? How many respondents were there in the study? In retrospect, do you think that you did it in such a way that all safeguards against statistical messups were followed?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Louweasel]

[quote=PeterGustafsson]Hi!

Originally Posted by fencergal33

I like to look at cleavage, but I do not assume that any woman showing it is entitling me, or any other man than her spouse, to sex.

"Or any man other than her spouse"? *raises eyebrow and smiles mischievously*
So, a woman's husband is "entitled" to sex? Not in this country - there was alandmark case when i was quite young, about rape within marriage - the husband was convicted, and the judge's ruling included a specific comment about women not being their husband's "goods and chattels".

But I expect you didn't mean it quite like that. And the rest of yiour p[oint was very valid - can't be lumping all men together with the predators, just as we can't lump all women in with the gold-digging bimbos...

[Pauli]

I think it's an excellent idea.
A pleasurable way of getting a free meal in eventually a nice company?
Hey, you can't always have everything, AND the COMPANY of a woman AND the body of a woman.
Be happy if you only get one.....should be worth the meal.


Hö.Looks like I fell in behind.........

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

MP, this is a good example of bad argument for a good cause. Since you obviously have been doing some thinking on the topic (see below) I will leave it to you to come up with a better rebuttal to DFP, which should not be an insurmountable task.

women can generally detect the not-so-subtle sense of a barter economy, and most resent being made feel like a prostitute, which means that many otherwise wonderful partners will decide that you're just not interesting.... and then, at the end of dinner, leave you?

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

I happen to agree with you here, MP. The number of yes answers among males is surprisinly high, and it saddens me that I seem to not be in a overwhelming majority of no/no/no voters. What to me is even more surprising, though, is the large number of yes votes among females - I would have expected percentages below 10% in all questions there! What is up with that?

the same system that suggests to boys that no doesn't really mean no, that women owe something to their boyfriends or husbands, etc....... that same system brainwashes the girls too. it's difficult much more difficult to rape someone who can identify at the time that it's rape--- she'll have no problem with kicking you in the balls. it's much easier to drug them, get them young, or brainwash them...........

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Even more surprises. Do you have any explanation for the between correlation between parental divorce and "against woman´s consent" acceptance? Do you think that either one causes the other, both are effects of a common root cause, or that the correlation is spurious - that is, not linked to any causation at all? How many respondents were there in the study? In retrospect, do you think that you did it in such a way that all safeguards against statistical messups were followed?

there was a correlation between that particular question and the children of divorced parents with and without the "against the woman's consent" phrase in it-- but even without the phrase, the wording of the question is "Does a man have the right to sexual intercourse if they are married?" (i think i might have cleaned up the question a bit... "does the man have the right to sexual intercourse with his wife" or some such).......... it seems to me to imply lack of consent..... the numbers were VERY similar in the surveys that asked "....have the right... against the consent" and the surveys that asked just " ...have the right...".

i don't have any of the datasets. i might have the conclusions somewhere (and i can look for them later), but i do remember that whatever statistical tests i used took account of the sample size in whether or not it was a statistically significant difference. the smallish sample size was what prevented me from claiming a difference in most of the tests i did-- which is why i specifically remember that question.

the sample size was small, i was just doing the study because i needed something to do.... (my original project ended up not happening, i don't remember why.....) .......all in all, it was a fairly meaningless test, especially considering it was people in my private high school, which was hardly a diverse sample.

what it does indicate is that there might be something interesting going on, and i would LIKE to look further into it.....


.... i got much better answers, overall, than the original study did- a significant number of people gave all no's, and most girls answered "correctly"........ so things aren't all lost.......

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by annacattiva

Um... How about a meal for good company and a pleasant evening?

I call double standard. The implication is that the woman is not getting that "good company and a pleasant evening", too, because that's not something men can provide, only women.

Be fair. Both parties are getting that, it's a draw. But the woman is getting a free meal as well. How can that be just?

[Amadeus]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

sex is NOT free.

i was just kidding...it's obvious that nothing entitles anyone to sex.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I call double standard. The implication is that the woman is not getting that "good company and a pleasant evening", too, because that's not something men can provide, only women.

Be fair. Both parties are getting that, it's a draw. But the woman is getting a free meal as well. How can that be just?

for that reason, i like to either A) pay for my portion of whatever it is (food, entertainment, etc) or B) sometimes pay for things and sometimes be treated to things, where overall it comes out even.

some guys, however, reject that model, and feel like they NEED to pay for things.

........ i usually don't like those kinds of guys, so it hasn't yet been a problem...


but if the guy insists on paying for a meal on a first date, the woman might not object too much in order to not make a scene (or whatever), in which case, it's the guy's fault.......