Who Pays for Dates: Something to Consider

[elaina]

It's not a valid arguement no. It's based on a lot of fallacies.

 

Please elaborate. And, if you know a woman or women who have been raped by a man or men who's paid for the date, please know that I would consider that to be a very valid argument for this study, because date rape is a very real thing. However, date rape is not just dependent on the man paying for the date. Many times date rape occurs, there is alcohol or some sort of drug involved, and of course, the character of the rapist. Thanks.

[dispatch3d]

uhmmmmm elaina I don't even know what to say after he provided the brown hair anology (which was pretty clear from what I can tell) and you still don't want to admit your argument is fallicious.

 

There are lots of other ways to attack the validity of the article. Sample size being one way. It is a pretty small sample. When the numbers were taken is also fair. How they collected the data and what conclusions are drawn is also fair.

 

It appears to say there's a coorelation between treating women on dates/traditional roles and people who justify "rape"-type behaviours or commit rape. You can't really devise anything further than that though.

 

So if a guy is very courteous with a lot of his dating views, that doesn't mean he's likely to become a rapist. We don't know any kind of cause. Do traditional roles cause rape, or do most rapists cause traditional roles? Lol that was a funny one. Or do most rapists end up having traditional roles.

 

Anyways, science, lol.

[dispatch3d]

Please elaborate. And, if you know a woman or women who have been raped by a man or men who's paid for the date, please know that I would consider that to be a very valid argument for this study, because date rape is a very real thing. However, date rape is not just dependent on the man paying for the date. Many times date rape occurs, there is alcohol or some sort of drug involved, and of course, the character of the rapist. Thanks.

 

I think it's a fallicious argument to say because of this study that if a guy takes you out to diner and pays he's very likely to rape you.

 

It may be that the girls they treat to dinner aren't the girls they rape. They may rape other girls at bars, and take girls they like or something out to dinners and pay for them/do traditional things for them.

 

The study doesn't specify.

 

However saying my friend is a girl and was raped by a guy and the guy had traditional views is not valid. In fact I really don't think if I took a poll of 800 people and checked for these views that the sample would be respresentative of the entire north american population. So .

[elaina]

I think it's a fallicious argument to say because of this study that if a guy takes you out to diner and pays he's very likely to rape you.

Hello Dispatched3d,

 

Lol If you read my first post on this thread, you will see that I totally agree. I tis a fallicious argument to say that if a guy takes me out to dinner and pays that he is very likely to rape me lol. I have not said that. Actually, I have said that the guys who have taken me out on dates and payed, that NONE have raped me. That is not implying that all men who pay on dates do not rape their dates, but it is true that based on my personal experiences, I have not seen a correlation between a man paying for a date with me and rape. My friends also have not noticed a correlation, as they have been on many dates with men who have payed for the whole date's expense, and have not been raped either.

 

It may be that the girls they treat to dinner aren't the girls they rape. They may rape other girls at bars, and take girls they like or something out to dinners and pay for them/do traditional things for them.

 

The study doesn't specify.

Agreed that the study doesn't specify, but the point I have been trying to make is that I have not experienced rape at the hands of men who have paid for the date. It's so simple lol. I don't know why it's gotten to be such a big deal. ? If you could go back and read my original thread, could you tell me if it is not clear? Thanks.

 

However saying my friend is a girl and was raped by a guy and the guy had traditional views is not valid. In fact I really don't think if I took a poll of 800 people and checked for these views that the sample would be respresentative of the entire north american population. So .

Ahhh! Read all my posts in this thread man!

 

I don't know a girl who's been raped by a man who's paid for the dates. I do know girls who sadly have been raped in other situations (stepdads) but I don't want to talk about that at the moment, because this has to do with men paying for dates and how that correlates with rape, and my point is that a man paying for the date does not mean that he is going to rape her.

 

However, there is such a thing as date rape that happens, but the prime factor is not if the man paid for the date or not. The man's character is the prime factor, how he treats women, not if he paid for the date or not.

 

The reason I consider it to be a valid reason FOR the study if you know a woman or women who were raped by a man who payed for the date would be because it would show that in real life (not just in a study of people answering questions) that women have experienced a correlation between men paying for dates and rape verses men not paying dates and not being raped. Other factors could come into play too, like the girl being drugged. Science has to do with correlating the relationship between variable factors, and isolating key factors.

Edited October 7, 2010 by elaina

[TaurusTerp]

Hello Dispatched3d,

 

Lol If you read my first post on this thread, you will see that I totally agree. I tis a fallicious argument to say that if a guy takes me out to dinner and pays that he is very likely to rape me lol. I have not said that. Actually, I have said that the guys who have taken me out on dates and payed, that NONE have raped me. That is not implying that all men who pay on dates do not rape their dates, but it is true that based on my personal experiences, I have not seen a correlation between a man paying for a date with me and rape. My friends also have not noticed a correlation, as they have been on many dates with men who have payed for the whole date's expense, and have not been raped either.

 

Agreed that the study doesn't specify, but the point I have been trying to make is that I have not experienced rape at the hands of men who have paid for the date. It's so simple lol. I don't know why it's gotten to be such a big deal. ? If you could go back and read my original thread, could you tell me if it is not clear? Thanks.

 

Ahhh! Read all my posts in this thread man!

 

I don't know a girl who's been raped by a man who's paid for the dates. I do know girls who sadly have been raped in other situations (stepdads) but I don't want to talk about that at the moment, because this has to do with men paying for dates and how that correlates with rape, and my point is that a man paying for the date does not mean that he is going to rape her.

 

However, there is such a thing as date rape that happens, but the prime factor is not if the man paid for the date or not. The man's character is the prime factor, how he treats women, not if he paid for the date or not.

 

The reason I consider it to be a valid reason FOR the study if you know a woman or women who were raped by a man who payed for the date would be because it would show that in real life (not just in a study of people answering questions) that women have experienced a correlation between men paying for dates and rape verses men not paying dates and not being raped. Other factors could come into play too, like the girl being drugged. Science has to do with correlating the relationship between variable factors, and isolating key factors.

 

I know 30 women who have been raped and only by men who paid for dates.

 

Since I know more instances of this happening I am more correct.

[Mad Max]

I know 30 women who have been raped and only by men who paid for dates.

 

Since I know more instances of this happening I am more correct.

 

 

So if a woman asks me out and pays for the date, does that mean I might get raped?

[tami-chan]

The good news is that 80 percent of the men said that "rape" was never justified - under any circumstance. The bad news is that 20 percent felt

that, in some instances, it was. Most of these men held traditional views

of sex roles. They believed that a woman was leading a man on if she asked

him for a date, went with him to hjis apartment or allowed him to pay for

all the expenses. Most traditionalists, and even some nontraditionalists,

believed that this implied a sexual invitation, which the woman had no

right to withdraw later on."

 

So these men feel "entitled" to sex, huh? Kinda like, if a man pays for the first date then he is "entitled" to a second date? Same principle of "entitlement"? Just asking.

[TaurusTerp]

So if a woman asks me out and pays for the date, does that mean I might get raped?

 

No, since she clearly holds to non-traditional values she is not capable of rape. I heard this from my friend.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Look at the sample used in this "study." I rest my case.

 

College students?

 

Aren't college grads the ones that run our country?

 

The men who raped and felt it was justified felt that way because:

1. The woman asked him out,

2. The woman went with him to his place/invited him to hers, OR

3. The woman allowed him to pay for everything.

These men believed that based on one or more of these circumstances, they were being led on. "It's the woman's fault!"

How you definitively correlate the last item as being THE REASON is beyond me. There's no way to parse it out.

And by your logic, a woman should never ask out a man, because that's factor #1. Also by your logic, the man should ask, but the woman should pay.

Yeah, the study is clearly bunk...

 

If you are willing to believe that 1/4 women is raped at some point, then you should be willing to take this study as something reasonable. Otherwise there has to be just a handful of guys committing rape all day every day.

 

Don't get so hung up on the justifications. The point is that you believe... "if he holds the door and pays he must be a gentleman", and I'm saying point of fact... not true.

 

Just as you assume a guy who doesn't pay for you both is 'El Cheapo' with no matters or kindness. It's not true at all.

 

My point which is really just common sense if you think about it... is that these things that you use to weed men out on first dates are truly meaningless.

 

If you were happily married... I would not bother to make this point at all.

 

The only connection I see between the arguments of "men paying for women" and "men raping women" is MEN. The fact that you see a correlation is either fantastically amusing... or disturbing - I haven't made up my mind yet.

 

Huh? This doesn't really make sense. Your too vague.

 

Is your argument really that women should date men who don't pick up the check because they are less likely to be rapists?

I've never gotten the impression that you have progessive views about gender Untouchable_Fire, more that you wanted women to have limited expectations of you.

There isn't a source cited for the paper, but I'm guessing it is this one http://www.springerlink.com/content/n118vk7167707615/ which was published in 1986 and first presented in 1985. The men studied would today be 47 at the youngest, so it isn't exactly up to date.

 

No, my thought is that using pay/no pay as a baseline criteria to say if a guy is kind/generous or mean/stingy is essentially worthless.

 

I don't even know what you mean by limited expectations. I doubt you know what you meant either... otherwise you would not have been vague.

 

I actually pulled this from an article summarizing the issue. It uses 8 polls and studies from the 76 to 08 , typically utilizing college students.

 

OR . . . one could interpret the study as indicating that about 20% of the population studied had antisocial tendencies but were able to justify to themselves their behavior or potential behavior.

Antisocial people often justify their behavior by blaming others "I drink because you made me mad", "I hit you because you pissed me off", "I stole becuase its a ripoff anyway"

This study is better indicative of the numbers of people out there that can and would justify a serious harm on another if the situation presented itself.

As to dating men who pick up the tab . . . . if he asks me and its the first date, I expect to be treated, if we've been seeing each other a while, I tend to take turns as to who pays, or I buy booze, he rents the movie, I make dinner, he gets dessert.

 

Based on common sense and this study... the majority of men who feel superior and strongly objectify women... are in the same category of guys you are primarily attempting to date.

 

Here is my suggestion to you. If the guy pays and you like him... fantastic, on to date 2.

 

If the guy doesn't pay for you and you like him... That should work as well, on to date 2.

 

So these men feel "entitled" to sex, huh? Kinda like, if a man pays for the first date then he is "entitled" to a second date? Same principle of "entitlement"? Just asking.

 

Personally... if she doesnt want me... I'm not interested. I've never had issues getting laid.

 

And if I don't get a second date after she lets me pay for the whole shebang... That just shows she is of very low character. Not worth my time to begin with.

 

I said "have to" in my previous post because I was assuming that you ladies were of a higher class on LS. Not the kind that would do that sort of thing.

[dispatch3d]

The reason there was a lot of defensive people in this thread is because you (accidently) implied that a lot of guys who they thought were keepers were actually rapists. In fact you implied some of the guys they probably dated had "rapist"-like tendencies.

 

However, the article doesn't actually state ANYTHING like that. The main point of the article is, that rapists tend to use traditionalist views to justify their (obviously terrible) behaviour.

 

I couldn't agree more that weeding out guys based on whether they are willing to pay for a bill or not seems silly/like a terrible idea.

[theBrokenMuse]

Don't get so hung up on the justifications. The point is that you believe... "if he holds the door and pays he must be a gentleman", and I'm saying point of fact... not true.

 

Just as you assume a guy who doesn't pay for you both is 'El Cheapo' with no matters or kindness. It's not true at all.

 

My point which is really just common sense if you think about it... is that these things that you use to weed men out on first dates are truly meaningless.

It is not meaningless. Reading people's behaviors can be used as a useful tool to assess an inclination towards the type of quality a person is looking for regardless if some undesirable subgroup happens to fall under the same umbrella. There are going to be undesirables and downright awful people in just about any category. It is the first tier of a larger elimination process.

Edited October 7, 2010 by theBrokenMuse

[Untouchable_Fire]

It is not meaningless. Reading people's behaviors can be used as a useful tool to assess an inclination towards the type of quality a person is looking for regardless if some undesirable subgroup happens to fall under the same umbrella. There are going to be undesirables and downright awful people in just about any category. It is the first tier of a larger elimination process.

 

It is meaningless... in terms of how the information is typically used by many women. If the topic comes up again I hope the discussion will be somewhat different.

 

It seems abundantly clear that many women are using pay/no-pay as a selecting criteria to choose who has "quality" traits. Which is like checking the transmission fluid when you want to know if your oil is low. It makes very little sense.

 

A good chunk of the guys who choose pay do so because they feel societal pressure, just want to impress, or feel superior. Similarly those guys who don't pay can choose that behavior type based on poor traits as well, but also good ones.

 

At 20% of the male population... its nearly impossible to avoid men who are potential rapists if your frequently dating, just as it's nearly impossible for me to avoid female cheaters.

[BruceLeroy]

Dunno. But this sounds like a media scare tactic intended to worry parents and put the ladies on edge.

 

¡Mujeres! ¡Permanencia de mi cartera o usted será violado!

 

Best you all just stay inside and hide.

 

Now I'm going to go watch reruns of Law and Order Rape Exploitation Unit.

[theBrokenMuse]

It seems abundantly clear that many women are using pay/no-pay as a selecting criteria to choose who has "quality" traits.

Not 'quality traits' as much as meet her criteria in accordance with exhibiting the behaviors that show her the potential for the qualities she deems desirable in a potential suitor. If the criteria they are looking to fill happens to be that of an old fashioned gentleman then it would make sense for a woman to give men the axe that did not exhibit behaviors that she associates with that label. Edited October 7, 2010 by theBrokenMuse

[elaina]

The reason there was a lot of defensive people in this thread is because you (accidently) implied that a lot of guys who they thought were keepers were actually rapists. In fact you implied some of the guys they probably dated had "rapist"-like tendencies.

 

That's what I had been trying to explain, but you said it a lot more eloquently and better and with less words than I did!

 

However, the article doesn't actually state ANYTHING like that. The main point of the article is, that rapists tend to use traditionalist views to justify their (obviously terrible) behaviour.

 

What bothered me was not the article, but it seemed to me that the OP seemed to associate men paying for dates with rapists, as if that could be a determining factor. However, the determine factor of a rapist is his (or her) character, not if he payed for a date or not. A man with good character would not rape, no matter if he payed for a date or not.

 

I couldn't agree more that weeding out guys based on whether they are willing to pay for a bill or not seems silly/like a terrible idea.

 

Well, there are some silly reasons why some men weed out women, hmm?

[lilbunny]

The reason there was a lot of defensive people in this thread is because you (accidently) implied that a lot of guys who they thought were keepers were actually rapists. In fact you implied some of the guys they probably dated had "rapist"-like tendencies.

 

However, the article doesn't actually state ANYTHING like that. The main point of the article is, that rapists tend to use traditionalist views to justify their (obviously terrible) behaviour.

 

I couldn't agree more that weeding out guys based on whether they are willing to pay for a bill or not seems silly/like a terrible idea.

 

I agree that is the general summary of the findings.

 

Wouldn't it have held greater validity if they had established the views of convicted rapists? As far as we can gather none of the respondents were rapists. 'I can see how that happened' is very different from actually participating in a criminal act and fundamentally this is what was being asked.

 

Perhaps those in the study with traditionalist views were more inclined to conformist behaviours and felt the researcher wanted them to identify at least some instances where it would be acceptable.

 

I'm not sure one study with evident limitations is enough to impact on anyone's life choices and dating habits.

[USMCHokie]

College students?

 

Aren't college grads the ones that run our country?

 

Yep, but college students are hardly representative of the world's dating population...and most college students are straight up idiots...hardly a conclusive study...

[Untouchable_Fire]

Yep, but college students are hardly representative of the world's dating population...and most college students are straight up idiots...hardly a conclusive study...

 

64% of highschool grads attend college. So over half the educated people in the U.S. are straight up idiots?

 

To be honest I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you. I think those guys are young and foolhardy. However, I don't think their overall attitude towards women changes much over the next 10-20 years.

[USMCHokie]

64% of highschool grads attend college. So over half the educated people in the U.S. are straight up idiots?

 

To be honest I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you. I think those guys are young and foolhardy. However, I don't think their overall attitude towards women changes much over the next 10-20 years.

 

Absolutely, in terms of functional intelligence and common sense. And you don't know whether their attitude changes unless this "study" included older subjects in their sample. Just a flawed study manipulated to come to a certain 'conclusion'...

[that girl]

If you are willing to believe that 1/4 women is raped at some point, then you should be willing to take this study as something reasonable. Otherwise there has to be just a handful of guys committing rape all day every day.

 

 

I don't even know what you mean by limited expectations. I doubt you know what you meant either... otherwise you would not have been vague.

I mean, you are very critical of women who have any expectations of you buying them things, going out of your way for them, etc. but want a woman who will go out of her way for you. If she does it first, you might recirprocate, maybe. You've said more than once in your rants againist American women that they want too much while foriegin women are eager to do things for a man regardless of how little effort he puts in.

 

I actually pulled this from an article summarizing the issue. It uses 8 polls and studies from the 76 to 08 , typically utilizing college students.

I googled the first line in quotes and it links to this http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0286.htm which you seem to have cut and pasted from. It lists one study from 1985, one from 1980, and a column from 1987.

 

I think research this old on rape is iffy because there has been a huge transformation in how we see rape. When those articles were published, some states still had laws saying a man could not rape his wife because wives are property. The youngest men in these studies would have been born in the early 60s.

 

If you don't want to pay for dinner, don't. But it is crazy to say "Hey ladies, you should go for the guy who wouldn't buy you dinner, he's less likely to rape you!"

[Untouchable_Fire]

I mean, you are very critical of women who have any expectations of you buying them things, going out of your way for them, etc. but want a woman who will go out of her way for you. If she does it first, you might recirprocate, maybe. You've said more than once in your rants againist American women that they want too much while foriegin women are eager to do things for a man regardless of how little effort he puts in.

 

That is simply not accurate.

 

The more someone does for me... the more I do for them. That is true of all my relationships.

 

My irritation with American women has always been primarily leveled at their general lack of fidelity.

 

In regards to expectations... I don't put many on the women I date. I don't expect my GF to do the things she does... that's why I appreciate them and try hard to reciprocate. I accept her for who she is, regardless of flaws, in fact I like many of her "flaws".

 

On the other hand... I've never dated a woman before that just enjoyed me for who I am this much. :bunny:

 

I googled the first line in quotes and it links to this http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0286.htm which you seem to have cut and pasted from. It lists one study from 1985, one from 1980, and a column from 1987.

 

I didn't use that website... but it's part of the exact same article! I did cut and paste a chunk from exactly that piece.

 

The one I read, I found while looking for a recent study done on UCLA students. The results were published in a magazine and I looked up the research that the magazine was basing it's article on.

 

I think research this old on rape is iffy because there has been a huge transformation in how we see rape. When those articles were published, some states still had laws saying a man could not rape his wife because wives are property. The youngest men in these studies would have been born in the early 60s.

 

I hate to disappoint, but guys have not changed. In fact the numbers are probably much increased since the majority of boys are raised in broken homes, lack quality male role models, and often have poor relationships with their mothers.

 

If you don't want to pay for dinner, don't. But it is crazy to say "Hey ladies, you should go for the guy who wouldn't buy you dinner, he's less likely to rape you!"

 

That's not what I'm saying at all. Go back and read the 3 or 4 consecutive posts where I said the POINT is that pay vs. no pay is not an indicator of quality traits in a man.

[that girl]

Unforgettable Fire, you have issues. You have this intense need to label American women a joke (despite or perhaps because this category includes your mother, sisters, aunts, grandmas, etc). Meanwhile "foreign" women are all lovely flowers desperate to make a man happy (regardless of which of the hundreds of countries or cultures she comes from).

 

You say you aren't making claims about paying for dinner makes a man more likely to rape you but you started the thread with

 

You may think the guy is a fantastic gentleman for paying. It also means there is a good chance he considers raping you justified under some circumstances.

 

If you wanted to defend men who choose to go dutch (something I don't have a problem with) there are better ways to do it than by saying "guys who are gentleman probably think rape is okay."

[EasyHeart]

This has to be one of the stupidest arguments yet posted on LS.

 

When I buy a woman dinner or open a door for her, it is because I have learned that these are social conventions that make me more attractive to women. It has nothing to do with my wanting to control her or rape her. It's because I want a second (and third and fourth and . . . date).

 

There seem to be a number of men on this site who aren't successful with women and therefore want to blame society instead of themselves. Women are not going to approach you, women are not going to ask you out, and women are not going to buy you things because that's just the way it is. You can sit there (alone) complaining about the injustice of women not asking you out and accusing any man who actually CAN get a date of being a rapist, but that doesn't make it true.

 

Time to start dealing with reality, boys.

[TaurusTerp]

This has to be one of the stupidest arguments yet posted on LS.

 

When I buy a woman dinner or open a door for her, it is because I have learned that these are social conventions that make me more attractive to women. It has nothing to do with my wanting to control her or rape her. It's because I want a second (and third and fourth and . . . date).

 

There seem to be a number of men on this site who aren't successful with women and therefore want to blame society instead of themselves. Women are not going to approach you, women are not going to ask you out, and women are not going to buy you things because that's just the way it is. You can sit there (alone) complaining about the injustice of women not asking you out and accusing any man who actually CAN get a date of being a rapist, but that doesn't make it true.

 

Time to start dealing with reality, boys.

 

No, you simply have a poor understanding of what people are discussing. It's not a matter of should you do this to get further with women - on the whole, I think almost all men would agree that paying for the date will get you further than not paying.

 

The argument is whether this is an outdated tradition that reinforces women as inferior beings in society. Social conventions often need to be reevaluated, or black people would still be working in the fields and women would be at home and unable to own property or vote. What has always been is not equal to what should be in the future.

[donnamaybe]

No, you simply have a poor understanding of what people are discussing. It's not a matter of should you do this to get further with women - on the whole, I think almost all men would agree that paying for the date will get you further than not paying.

 

The argument is whether this is an outdated tradition that reinforces women as inferior beings in society. Social conventions often need to be reevaluated, or black people would still be working in the fields and women would be at home and unable to own property or vote. What has always been is not equal to what should be in the future.

DING DING DING!!!! WINNUH!!!!!