Ladies Night Derail From ERA Thread

[Tom Sawyer]

Does anyone else besides me have a different perspective on men and women meeting up in bars these days, versus say, 20 or 30 years ago? In particular, with regard to all the talk about date rape, alcohol, consent, sexual harrassment, etc? It all seems like a minefield these days. I had an ex-girlfriend tell me once (back in the early '90's) that it was a really classy thing for a guy to buy a woman a drink, and nowadays, that seems like its a guy saying, "Here, let me give you this date rape drug (i.e alcohol) to loosen your inhibitions and take away your ability to consent to my upcoming sexual advances". Or putting your hand on a girl's shoulder at the bar to get her attention could now be construed as a sexual harassment or even assault? Maybe there should be "Enter at your own risk" signs at bars/nightclubs now.

Given the amount of hookups going on in bars and clubs on a nightly basis, this seems to be about as much of a concern as bear attacks.

Oh goodness... the amount of stupid from this White House, I had forgotten the bear attacks at school threat. Shouldn't we be building walls around schools?

Ineffective. The vast majority of bear attacks occur at legal ports of entry or in tunnels.

 

[thebeave]

Does anyone else besides me have a different perspective on men and women meeting up in bars these days, versus say, 20 or 30 years ago? In particular, with regard to all the talk about date rape, alcohol, consent, sexual harrassment, etc? It all seems like a minefield these days. I had an ex-girlfriend tell me once (back in the early '90's) that it was a really classy thing for a guy to buy a woman a drink, and nowadays, that seems like its a guy saying, "Here, let me give you this date rape drug (i.e alcohol) to loosen your inhibitions and take away your ability to consent to my upcoming sexual advances". Or putting your hand on a girl's shoulder at the bar to get her attention could now be construed as a sexual harassment or even assault? Maybe there should be "Enter at your own risk" signs at bars/nightclubs now.

Given the amount of hookups going on in bars and clubs on a nightly basis, this seems to be about as much of a concern as bear attacks.

Well, let's hope you're right. I cringe when I think of young adults these days taking the words of a bunch of finger wagging blue haired 3rd wave feminists seriously.

 

[starwater]

How much is Jeff Bezos wife going to get in the divorce settlement?

She should get 0. I mean it's not like he has access to her cleaning, cooking or sex after divorce. So why should she still have access to his money?

I do not see why any man agrees to get married. It's basically signing up to be a serf for the rest of your life, given the gynocentric divorce laws we have.

It's astonishing at what a dim, uneducated, unevolved and emotionally immature view you have of the concept of a loving relationship and your incredibly dysfunctional attitudes toward women. Were you dropped on your head as a child?

Women are not for men's use for sex, cooking and cleaning services.

 

[ruby sparks]

Oh goodness... the amount of stupid from this White House, I had forgotten the bear attacks at school threat. Shouldn't we be building walls around schools?

Ineffective. The vast majority of bear attacks occur at legal ports of entry or in tunnels.

And...

 

[repoman]

I think that the ridiculous amount of Jeff Bezos has earned (let's skip questions about cooperation with the CIA etc...) put his marriage and divorce far outside of the realm of most people.

Take a more normal situation of a wife and husband who earn say $50k/yr and $100k/yr each with some time spent off work to raise a couple of kids. Sometime the reverse happens, which is cool.

Anyway, a divorce settlement that "favors" the woman (or stay at home parent) in this case is probably fair.

But when differentials are orders of magnitude in earning power this breaks down and becomes nonsensical.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Anybody can order wings. Not everybody is a woman.

Think again. Anybody can be a woman these days. You just have to put on a dress Derec, or should I say Donna?

 

[RVonse]

I do not see why any man agrees to get married.

So they can see their kids once in a while without supervision?

 

[RVonse]

Like what?

You will get more men into your bar if you have more women in your bar. You will get more women into your bar if you offer them discounts. What you lose in the discount on the one hand you more than make up for it on the other.

Yes, it is discriminatory, and I'm not the one who argues there must never be any discrimination (except for discrimination approved of by the Progressive Stack). I say let a business do what it wants.

The Constitution only bars the government from discriminating against people. And maybe if the ERA passes, women too.

A private business can discriminate without offending the Constitution.

A private apartment complex can discriminate who it wants to rent to? (example, only whites allowed) I did not know that.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So now the fact that men and women have different preferences that a business can appeal to is deeply unfair.

Therefore evolution is unfair.

 

[Jarhyn]

So now the fact that men and women have different preferences that a business can appeal to is deeply unfair.

Therefore evolution is unfair.

To be fair, evolution IS quite unfair. There are a lot of bullshit things about human bodies in general, and my body in particular, that I am unhappy with.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Alright Derec, I asked for this split because I wanted to talk about the economics of interpersonal interactions without further derailing the thread about the ERA amendment, so here goes.

I understand splitting of the 'sexual economics' discussion, but mods removed everything, even when it pertained to legality of the discrimination.

Not really as ERA is about government policy and "ladies night" is about a private business trying to make more money.

Now I think we can agree on the first premise - men and women are different.

I don't have a problem with that. What I have problem with is that these days, that is only acknowledged when it benefits women. Why are most people in STEM men? Must be discrimination, can't be due to differences between men and women for example.
That applies here too. Differences between men and women are acknowledged because it benefits women - it gets them a much cheaper night out.

Although we're discussing humans, I think it is probably best to start by looking at deer. In a deer population, the bucks compete fiercely for the does, and a successful buck mates with many does while the unsuccessful one does not mate at all. This works because of the different reproductive burdens and therefore reproductive strategies of males and females in the mammal population. A male can sire many offspring in a year, a female is more limited. Usually a doe will have one faun per mating season which I think is one faun per year.

Apes, especially great apes, invest a lot of time in care for the offspring. Some species are like that, others not so much. Investing that much care is a cost. Therefore it not only behooves a female ape to find a good offspring, she also wants to find one that can help with the rearing of the offspring. A mating cycle that leaves the male abandoning the female is a mating cycle that leaves the female very burdened. She can spend the next few years caring for offspring without any help.

But that no longer applies to humans because we have laws that burden the man with 18 years of child support.
When biology benefits men, laws are passed to rectify that. But when biology benefits women, I keep hearing arguments how that is the way things are supposed to be. It's a double standard.

Unequal treatment under the law is not the reason bars offer a ladies night.

Although we have polygamy many times in history, we are still a fairly monogamous species.

Tell that to any player with multiple side chicks.

You must have missed the word "fairly".

So our genetics gear us towards that kind of interaction. That is why we have "unfair" courtship rituals. It is also why we have the "slut double standard". Each party pays their respective good to get the other good. A man who sleeps with lots of women may be an asshole, but he is getting benefit without payment. A woman who sleeps around is giving benefit without receiving payment. That is a bad economic transaction, to give your valuable commodity without getting their valuable commodity in exchange. That is also why we show contempt for "nice guys" because they give the love and don't get the sex. "Nice guys" are the male version of sluts.

Shaming female sluts is no longer politically correct. But making fun of nice guys is still very much accepted. Again, a double standard.

Political Correctness and Social Justice are not the reason bars offer a ladies night.

That is why it makes good economic sense for a bar to offer a ladies night. It is easy for a woman to find sex if she so chooses. Her genetics prompt her to want to choose the best she can get for it. She goes to the bar to receive advances, not to make advances. The male goes to the bar to make advances.

And all women want the top 20% best looking guys. That means 80% of guys at these bars are merely subsidizing the women without having any realistic shot with them.
Again, why are such discrepancies only acceptable when they benefit women?

Yes, women want the best. So do men. And in the current year the system has some breakdowns occuring. It is still a fact that she goes there to receive advances and he goes there to make advances.

You want the sex, they want the mastodon.

Which is why I think the honest "sex for mastadoncash" is much more honest than this nonsensical bar mating dance people engage in.

That brings up prostitution, which is a related but not synonmous topic. In that case, because present need is so bad, she is trading what she has of value in exchange for immediate short term benefit instead of the long term benefit. Overall though the "nonsensical bar mating dance" is over more than just the short term. If you want to meet people, you have to go where the people are. There are many studies I can pull up about where people meet their life partners, including places like school, bars, work (even today if you can imagine it), social clubs, etc. What they all have in common is that they did more than just stew about how unfair everything is.

These interactions between men and women can be looked at through the lens of economics, and once you see that each side is giving something to get something from the other side you'll see it isn't actually unfair, it is transactional as are most human interactions.

It is unfair to vast majority of men. It benefits all women and a small minority of men.
But again, our society seeks to redress unfairness in sexual economics if and only if this unfairness disadvantages women. If it disadvantages men, it's considered acceptable. I do not think that's right.

It is unfair to men that women give sex to get love and men give love to get sex? It is unfair that in order to get what you want you have to give something of what you have?

 

[Derec]

Not really as ERA is about government policy and "ladies night" is about a private business trying to make more money.

They are also public accommodations. I understand that you are a hard libertarian who doesn't believe in prohibiting public accommodations from discriminating, but that's the law in US with respect to race for example, so why not this?

Unequal treatment under the law is not the reason bars offer a ladies night.

It's not the reason why they do it, but our society's tolerance of unequal treatment under the law is the reason why they are allowed to get away with it.

Political Correctness and Social Justice are not the reason bars offer a ladies night.

Again, it's the reason they are able to get away with such blatantly discriminatory behavior even though it would not be tolerated if women were charged more.

Yes, women want the best. So do men. And in the current year the system has some breakdowns occuring. It is still a fact that she goes there to receive advances and he goes there to make advances.

You are ignoring my point of the imbalance in how society treats men and women. When biological inequalities benefit men, laws are passed to 'fix' biologically imposed inequality - for example requiring men to pay child support. But the reverse is not the case. This has led to the present situation where society favors women by simple fact that any advantage men have is addressed by law, while advantages women have are treated as "the way things should be".

That brings up prostitution, which is a related but not synonmous topic. In that case, because present need is so bad, she is trading what she has of value in exchange for immediate short term benefit instead of the long term benefit. Overall though the "nonsensical bar mating dance" is over more than just the short term. If you want to meet people, you have to go where the people are. There are many studies I can pull up about where people meet their life partners, including places like school, bars, work (even today if you can imagine it), social clubs, etc. What they all have in common is that they did more than just stew about how unfair everything is.

It's easy for women when the unfairness is in their favor!
Basically you are saying that men should just shut up about unfairness and live with it because somehow it's right for women to have the advantage in the mating game. I reject that entire premise!
I'd rather live alone than buy (literally!) into this sexist system.
Especially since many women will enter long term relationship with a man they see as a good and stable provider, but then fuck around with the guys they are really sexually attracted to, confident that the divorce laws give them the advantage if the poor guy should ever find out he was cheated on.

It is unfair to men that women give sex to get love and men give love to get sex? It is unfair that in order to get what you want you have to give something of what you have?

It's unfair for the system to expect men to pay for the mere opportunity to meet women, especially when those women ignore most of these men.
It's not a fair exchange - the deck is stacked because the laws only act to one-sidedly help women.

There are many women who go out on dates with men (who are expected to pay for the whole thing!) just for free meals with no interest in the man himself.
Beware of ‘foodie call’ dates who are just in it for a free meal
Sneating is the new dating term for dates who only use you for free food
Erin Wotherspoon Serial Dating For Free Restaurant Meals

This is no longer giving something to get something you want. It's outright fraud, defended by feminists because it's only men who are harmed.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The reason they get away with such "blatantly discriminatory behavior" is because it works. It achieves the desired result of more people in the bar.

You see the plight of the poor man making advances and getting rejected. There's also the plight of the woman hoping someone will finally make an advance and just sitting there waiting. Have you tried talking to her or are you too upset that the top 20% of women are rejecting you? There's transaction in both directions, there's fairness and unfairness in both directions.

 

[RVonse]

How much is Jeff Bezos wife going to get in the divorce settlement?

One hell of a big efn mastodon to chew on!

 

[RVonse]

So now the fact that men and women have different preferences that a business can appeal to is deeply unfair.

Therefore evolution is unfair.

To be fair, evolution IS quite unfair. There are a lot of bullshit things about human bodies in general, and my body in particular, that I am unhappy with.

But is it fair for the law to try to equalize your unfairness? When it comes to the small things, most people do not seem mind legislation trying to undo what nature has already made unfair. For example, most people do not have a problem helping handicap people for instance giving them parking preference in front of stores. It is an example of charity that most people do not mind.

The problem is when those laws become big and unfair because they fail to keep up with society (child support and custody). That is when people like Derec are correct to be bitching about their unfairness.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

How much is Jeff Bezos wife going to get in the divorce settlement?

One hell of a big efn mastodon to chew on!

 

[RVonse]

There's transaction in both directions, there's fairness and unfairness in both directions.

There is unfairness in both directions but our law only helps to correct one of the parties. That is what makes Derec right.

 

[Derec]

You see the plight of the poor man making advances and getting rejected. There's also the plight of the woman hoping someone will finally make an advance and just sitting there waiting.

The difference is, the man had to pay the cover charge and pay full price for his drinks. The woman got in for free and is able to enjoy half-priced drinks.
Also, would it kill her to make an advance herself?

Have you tried talking to her

No, but that's because I have long since given up on trying to meet women. If you ever saw what I look like (a little like the Fat Bastard from Austin Powers) you'd understand why.

or are you too upset that the top 20% of women are rejecting you?

But it's not just the top 20% of women. All the women are hoping that the top 20% of guys will approach them and therefore they are shooting down guys more comparable to them in looks.
This OK Cupid survey about how men and women rate each other is very eye-opening.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This OK Cupid survey about how men and women rate each other is very eye-opening.

Not from the viewpoint of evolutionary biology. Although we are no longer living in caves (although we didn't actually live in caves back then) and hunting mastodons, there is a biological imperative for women to be more choosy.

 

[Derec]

Not from the viewpoint of evolutionary biology.

Why is viewing gender relations from the standpoint of evolutionary biology only politically correct when it benefits women?

Although we are no longer living in caves (although we didn't actually live in caves back then) and hunting mastodons, there is a biological imperative for women to be more choosy.

If that were the case, I wonder why so many women choose the absolutely worst specimens of manhood to be with.