Dine and Dash dater now faces 6 years

[ruby sparks]

"Mr Ballsinger admits he had zero attraction to his date. He chose her merely because she seemed successful and “lonely,” two factors suggesting she’d be happy to pay for his company.
“I can only imagine what the cost was — probably, like, a month of pay from my job,” he says of the five-course meal he savored that night.
When the bill came, he coyly fumbled for his wallet in a feigned attempt to pay for his half of the meal. As expected, his date swept in and she took care of the tab".

Does that sound ok? Does it sound ok if the guy is doing it on a serial basis 4 or 5 times a week with the explicit intention of getting free meals, not necessarily only from wealthy women (sometimes getting just a burger and a milkshake, as per the female dater in the video) never seeing the dates again but sharing his 'spreadsheets for free meals from first dates with women' with his male buddies?

Not all foodie call dating is going to be of that nature or on that scale, of course. And even in those cases the deception is not as explicit as in the OP.

And I accept that in the linked article (possibly not the video) there were at least some caveats about it 'not being the right thing' (for the women to be doing).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This guy acted fraudulently and hurt people by doing it. He is rightly condemned. There is no reason to believe that they deserved it, or that they are spoiled princesses who manipulate men.

Women who do lie to and emotionally manipulate men, and let's not pretend this only happens for free meals, are also acting fraudulently and are rightly condemned. So are men who emotionally manipulate women for gain.

The former is given softer trestment than the latter, to the point that the women can openly boast about it and draw laughter and some praise.

We live in a society of gender bias and double standards wherein women are looked upon as weak and victims in need of paternalistic protection, and men are looked upon as strong and potential predators. Egalitarianism challenges this. Feminism feeds into it.

Enough said.

 

[ruby sparks]

This guy acted fraudulently and hurt people by doing it. He is rightly condemned. There is no reason to believe that they deserved it, or that they are spoiled princesses who manipulate men.

Women who do lie to and emotionally manipulate men, and let's not pretend this only happens for free meals, are also acting fraudulently and are rightly condemned. So are men who emotionally manipulate women for gain.

The former is given softer trestment than the latter, to the point that the women can openly boast about it and draw laughter and some praise.

We live in a society of gender bias and double standards wherein women are looked upon as weak and victims in need of paternalistic protection, and men are looked upon as strong and potential predators. Egalitarianism challenges this. Feminism feeds into it.

Enough said.

No, sorry, I would have to take issue with that last bit (up to then I was ok with it). I don't think you can fairly characterise Feminism as feeding into that. Some Feminism, maybe, and even then I'm not entirely sure how much even 'that sort' of Feminism actually feeds into it and how much the assertion that it feeds into it is used to have a convenient go at Feminism (some of both may be happening, imo).

But certainly not 'Feminism'. I think that's definitely too general no matter what. And I wonder how telling it is that you didn't nuance the term, or whether it was accidental sloppiness.

And I say that as someone who would self-identify as an egalitarian and not a feminist, with or without a capital F.

Also, do you realise how often (I'll give you a clue: quite) you openly contradict one of your own (imo flawed) mantras about decrying identity politics when you over-generalise the (supposed) attributes of a whole grouping like that?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But certainly not 'Feminism'. I think that's definitely too general no matter what. And I wonder how telling it is that you didn't nuance the term, or whether it was accidental sloppiness.

Oh, I've given up on nuancing the term, and I've given up on salvaging the name. I once started a thread here attempting to do both of those things. I don't recall if you were part of it. I now refer to Egalitarianism to distinguish, as I did in that post you just quoted. Feminism, I'm afraid, is lost to the identitarians, hate mongers, and pushers of gender double standards. When people like Christina Hoff Sommers and Warren Farrell are thrown out of Feminist groups and demonized as misogynists, the times have changed. I now distinguish Feminism as this, and Egalitarianism as the push for equal treatment and women's equal rights.

I am curious how you distinguish these two terms.

 

[ZiprHead]

But certainly not 'Feminism'. I think that's definitely too general no matter what. And I wonder how telling it is that you didn't nuance the term, or whether it was accidental sloppiness.

Oh, I've given up on nuancing the term, and I've given up on salvaging the name. I once started a thread here attempting to do both of those things. I don't recall if you were part of it. I now refer to Egalitarianism to distinguish, as I did in that post you just quoted. Feminism, I'm afraid, is lost to the identitarians, hate mongers, and pushers of gender double standards. When people like Christina Hoff Sommers and Warren Farrell are thrown out of Feminist groups and demonized as misogynists, the times have changed. I now distinguish Feminism as this, and Egalitarianism as the push for equal treatment and women's equal rights.

I am curious how you distinguish these two terms.

So, going with identity politics then. Whoda thunk it?

 

[Rhea]

Yeah, because there is no difference whatsoever in not agreeing to jump in the sack because you got a dinner and literally running away from the restaurant to avoid paying the bill. WTF are these people thinking?

If a woman goes on a date where she knows she is not attracted to the guy just to enjoy a free meal, that's fraud as well.

I dunno, I hear some women are specifically asked to be a dinner companion to men they aren't attracted to. Some women are even paid money (not food) to have sex with men they aren't attracted to.

Is that a shitty thing to do, too? Or is the fraud part that the guy thought he had a chance at sex for the price of a meal and he feels like he got ripped off? You got to have a meal with a nice lady. Not enough?

 

[Rhea]

This guy acted fraudulently and hurt people by doing it. He is rightly condemned. There is no reason to believe that they deserved it, or that they are spoiled princesses who manipulate men.

Women who do lie to and emotionally manipulate men, and let's not pretend this only happens for free meals, are also acting fraudulently and are rightly condemned. So are men who emotionally manipulate women for gain.

The former is given softer trestment than the latter, to the point that the women can openly boast about it and draw laughter and some praise.

We live in a society of gender bias and double standards wherein women are looked upon as weak and victims in need of paternalistic protection, and men are looked upon as strong and potential predators. Egalitarianism challenges this. Feminism feeds into it.

Enough said.

Hang on, did you just say that men don't exploit women fraudulently and then "openly boast about it and draw laughter and some praise." I mean, sure it's more often sex where the woman has an expectation of a second date but where the man doesn't actually like her all that much, he just wanted to get laid. But did you really say that only women "openly boast about [the deception] and draw laughter and some praise." ???

If that's true, how does Derec identify all those assholes that he says all the women date?

 

[RVonse]

Or is the fraud part that the guy thought he had a chance at sex for the price of a meal and he feels like he got ripped off? You got to have a meal with a nice lady. Not enough?

Its actually not just the food the guy got screwed out of or the fact he never got laid. Its really about his life. And his valuable time that could and would have been spent on someone who was actually available for a relationship.

A complete fraud of a woman's intentions that never gets any mention. And thats the double standard.

 

[laughing dog]

This guy acted fraudulently and hurt people by doing it. He is rightly condemned. There is no reason to believe that they deserved it, or that they are spoiled princesses who manipulate men.

Women who do lie to and emotionally manipulate men, and let's not pretend this only happens for free meals, are also acting fraudulently and are rightly condemned. So are men who emotionally manipulate women for gain.

The former is given softer trestment than the latter, to the point that the women can openly boast about it and draw laughter and some praise.

WTF? Men boast about this sort of shittiness all of the time. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about it.

We live in a society of gender bias and double standards wherein women are looked upon as weak and victims in need of paternalistic protection, and men are looked upon as strong and potential predators. Egalitarianism challenges this. Feminism feeds into it.

When one redefines "feminism" to fit into one's identity politics, this kind of nonsense appears.

 

[Rhea]

A complete fraud of a woman's intentions that never gets any mention. And thats the double standard.

Dude.

Really?

No complete fraud of men's intentions happen?
Are you kidding!?
Did you really just say double standard?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So, going with identity politics then. Whoda thunk it?

Nope. Just defining my terms. If you don't fit the definition, you're not who I'm talking about. This is no more identity politics than calling white people white is identity politics.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But did you really say that only women "openly boast about [the deception] and draw laughter and some praise." ???

Perhaps I should clarify. I was writing about our societal bias. I wasn't talking about fringe groups of not misogynist asshats. Even the KKK can probably get some laughter and praise with calls for murdering minorities for another example. But that's not something society in general will accept today and you won't be seeing either of these drawing applause and laughter on a mainstream TV talk show for example, nor will they be the centrepiece of advertising campaigns. Do you remember Lorena Bobbit when she castrated her husband, and the ladies on the morning show laughed about it? Imagine had a man done the equivalent to a woman and the reaction such jokes would have drawn.

We live in a society with a strong bias for gender roles of woman as weak victim in need of support (and often lacking agency), and men as strong potential predators (with agency). This bias hurts people of both genders. It is a bias you will often see expressed by both liberals and conservatives, and both male chauvenists and feminists. It is why women are often not taken as seriously as men and are sometimes mentioned as the "weaker sex". It is what the "anything you can do I can do" mentality of early Feminists (when Feminism was a force for good) was fighting against.

Did you really just say double standard?

Yes, there is a double standard.

 

[ruby sparks]

So, going with identity politics then. Whoda thunk it?

Nope. Just defining my terms. If you don't fit the definition, you're not who I'm talking about. This is no more identity politics than calling white people white is identity politics.

No, sorry. The equivalent in this case of calling white people white would merely be calling Feminist people Feminist.

The generic form you are essentially now using when referring to for example Feminists is of a different type; it's not 'people of group X are X's', it's 'people of group X are additional attribute Y'.

In your case, as someone who invariably decries this sort of group stereotyping when you don't like it ('men are privileged' for example) there is a double standard operating.

 

[ruby sparks]

Did you really just say double standard?

Yes, there is a double standard.

I think so too.

It isn't clear cut or pronounced, but imo it is still, even today, for a variety of reasons, perceived to be at least somewhat more acceptable for women to openly admit to (for example) essentially duping men into paying for dinners than it is or would be for men to openly (ie not in the 'locker room' for example) admit to pretty much the same thing.

 

[laughing dog]

So, going with identity politics then. Whoda thunk it?

Nope. Just defining my terms.

In order to promote your identity politics. Now "feminists" are "agin" your positions instead of "fore{ your positions. You are only fooling yourself with these pathetic rhetorical devices.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, because there is no difference whatsoever in not agreeing to jump in the sack because you got a dinner and literally running away from the restaurant to avoid paying the bill. WTF are these people thinking?

If a woman goes on a date where she knows she is not attracted to the guy just to enjoy a free meal, that's fraud as well.

I dunno, I hear some women are specifically asked to be a dinner companion to men they aren't attracted to. Some women are even paid money (not food) to have sex with men they aren't attracted to.

Is that a shitty thing to do, too? Or is the fraud part that the guy thought he had a chance at sex for the price of a meal and he feels like he got ripped off? You got to have a meal with a nice lady. Not enough?

The issue comes down to fraud.

So long as they're both on the same page, fine, whatever that page is.

When one is on the exploring relationship prospects page and the other is on get free food from someone they aren't interested in page it's wrong.

 

[ruby sparks]

I dunno, I hear some women are specifically asked to be a dinner companion to men they aren't attracted to. Some women are even paid money (not food) to have sex with men they aren't attracted to.

Is that a shitty thing to do, too? Or is the fraud part that the guy thought he had a chance at sex for the price of a meal and he feels like he got ripped off? You got to have a meal with a nice lady. Not enough?

The issue comes down to fraud.

So long as they're both on the same page, fine, whatever that page is.

When one is on the exploring relationship prospects page and the other is on get free food from someone they aren't interested in page it's wrong.

I mightn't even say they have to be on the same page. She might be looking for a relationship and he might be looking for only sex.

However since that does not necessarily involve fraud (unless one of them lies to the other) I think I still agree with you that the issue is about fraud.

Or if we mean by fraud that there is financial gain or loss involved, then we could generally change it to dishonesty. Not all dishonesty will be a criminal matter, obviously. But I guess we might say that the greater the degree of dishonesty the greater the wrong?

 

[Rhea]

Did you really just say double standard?

Yes, there is a double standard.

I think so too.

It isn't clear cut or pronounced, but imo it is still, even today, for a variety of reasons, perceived to be at least somewhat more acceptable for women to openly admit to (for example) essentially duping men into paying for dinners than it is or would be for men to openly (ie not in the 'locker room' for example) admit to pretty much the same thing.

Oh gosh, no. That NEVER happens. And when it does, just EVERYONE will reject the person doing it.

Donald Trump: You know and I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach.

Unknown: She used to be great. She’s still very beautiful.

Trump: I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and f*** her. She was married.

Unknown: That’s huge news.

Trump. No, no, Nancy. This was— And I moved on her very heavily in fact. I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture. I took her out furniture. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there, and she was married.

Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big, phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

[The men spot Arianne Zucker waiting for them outside the bus]

Bush: Sheesh, your girl’s hot as shit. In the purple.

Trump: Whoa! Yes! Whoa!

Unknown: Yes! The Donald has scored. Whoa, my man!

Trump: Look at you. You are a pussy.

[crosstalk as the bus doors open and close - Trump is still on the bus]

Trump: Maybe it’s a different one.

Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s her. It’s —

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.

And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the p****. You can do anything.

Bush: Yeah those legs, all I can see is the legs.

Trump: Oh, it looks good.

Bush: Come on, shorty.

Trump: Oh, nice legs, huh?

Bush: Oof, get out of the way, honey. Oh, that’s goo legs. Go ahead.

Trump: It’s always good if you don’t fall out of the bus. Like Ford, Gerald Ford, remember?

[Trump knocks on the bus door to get out]

Bush: Down below. Pull the handle.

Trump: Hello. How are you? Hi.

Arianne Zucker: Hi Mr Trump. How are you?

Trump: Nice seeing you. Terrific, terrific. You know Billy Bush?

Bush: Hello, nice to see you. How you doing, Arianne?

Zucker: I’m doing very well, thank you. Are you ready to be a soap star?

Trump: We’re ready, let’s go. Make me a soap star.

Bush: How about a little hug for the Donald? He just got off the bus.

Zucker: Would you like a little hug, darling?

Trump: Absolutely. Melania said this was okay.

Oh, wait, you said,

It isn't clear cut or pronounced, but imo it is still, even today, for a variety of reasons, perceived to be at least somewhat more acceptable for women to openly admit to (for example) essentially duping men into paying for dinners than it is or would be for men to openly (ie not in the 'locker room' for example) admit to pretty much the same thing.

Riiiiight. Because when men call women sluts in a locker room no harm at all comes from that, amirite?

 

[ruby sparks]

Riiiiight. Because when men call women sluts in a locker room no harm at all comes from that, amirite?

No. How on earth could you have got that from what I said?

Also, personally, I don't like that sort of 'locker room' talk. And luckily, even though I'm in a male sports locker room at least twice a week, I don't hear it very often if at all. I can't think of an instance. I don't think I even heard it that often if at all when I was a younger man in men's locker rooms either. I've frequented such places most of my life.

And if I did happen to come across a man who described women as sluts, in a locker room or elsewhere, I doubt I'd want anything much to do with him, because I probably wouldn't think very much of him.

 

[Rhea]

Riiiiight. Because when men call women sluts in a locker room no harm at all comes from that, amirite?

No. How on earth could you have got that from what I said?

Because Trump's statement was dismissed as "locker room talk," as if a) it was in a locker room and b) it's okay if it's in a locker room.
I am delighted to be wrong. I'm glad you find both a) and b) to be inexcusable.

Also, personally, I don't like that sort of 'locker room' talk. And luckily, even though I'm in a male sports locker room at least twice a week, I don't hear it very often if at all. I can't think of an instance. I don't think I even heard it that often if at all when I was a younger man in men's locker rooms either. I've frequented such places most of my life.

And if I did happen to come across a man who described women as sluts, in a locker room or elsewhere, I doubt I'd want anything much to do with him, because I probably wouldn't think very much of him.

Hopefully you would want a LOT to do with him as you explained how wrong that is. We can't have those comments unaddressed - we need the men in the locker room to smash it down as beastly behavior. Walking away doesn't help.

But thanks.