Today we discussed the curious case of the so-called “Dine-and-Dash Dater.” Paul Gonzales is accused of running out on several women at restaurants after expensive meal. As we discussed, much of the alleged crime would depend on the expectations or understanding of the daters. Below is a poll designed to gauge how jurors might view such a case.
Women have said that Gonzales eats big meals and then leaves to make a call to a sick aunt or some other emergency. The women eventually learn that he has fled and stuck them with high dinner bills.
Much of the criminal case depends on the understanding or expectations of the two dating. That raises the interesting socio-legal question of whether men are expected to pay for the dinner on the first date. It may be difficult for the law to hold men to such a social convention, though it would be reasonable to hold them to half of the cost absent an agreement or understanding to the contrary.
Below is a poll to gauge whether mores or expectations have changed:
CV writes: “Doesn’t if have to do with your expectations of after dinner?”
No. But if you think dinner is paying for sex then why not skip the middleman (restaurant) and pay directly?
Yes, men should still pay for dinner, open doors, and be otherwise courteous and attentive. Men should also ask women out. Sure, there is equality when women ask men out on dates and propose to men, but a lot of men instinctively need that pursuit. If a man is not willing to make any effort to have your company, then he’s just not that into you.
Women decry the loss of courting. They complain that men today just want casual hookups and no one actually pursues a woman with the purpose of getting married. It’s women who push marriage on many men today. But then you have women relegating men to the role of sperm donor and pleasurable pastime. You cannot have it both ways.
In follow up to the above, I know a woman who dated a man with whom she always split the check. She had pursued him, and asked him out. He was a feminist, who believed that women were equal to men. She felt that this was a very mature, progressive way to handle social interactions. She didn’t want to be treated like a dependent child or someone incapable.
She married him and had a child. He still expected her to pay exactly half of everything. He made more money than her. She had to keep working after she had the child, because how else could she financially contribute? He expected her to be capable and pull her own weight in the marriage, regardless of the fact that she was a mother. Her child went to daycare. He did relegate most of the child duties to her, as well as most cleaning, as he worked longer hours. She grew exhausted. He withheld some vacations because she could not pay for her half, even though he could easily have afforded it. He resented that she struggled to fairly split all the bills. She missed out on some parts of her child’s life that cannot be replaced.
This situation grew worse, until she realized that what she had allowed to grow, from the very first date, was a roommate relationship, not a marriage. She did not have a man who would sacrifice everything for his family, and who would take care of his woman so she could nurture their child. He viewed her as a roommate with whom he split all the bills, and had a bed buddy relationship with.
Now, they are divorced, and everything was divided through divorce court. One day she hopes to find a real mate who will pursue her.
Ladies, think about what kind of future relationship you want with a man, and choose your actions wisely from your very first date.
I believe the woman’s rights movement went too far and was too selfishly self-fulfilling. Neither my future wife nor myself had much money but on the first official dinner out I paid but I noted how she ordered very carefully to keep the bill down. She had two major careers but we both preferred that she bring up the children and she didn’t want to continue her second career so she stopped working. Fortunately, we didn’t need two incomes after a few years of marriage and she was a careful spender. For most of our very long-term marriage, I was the only one working.
Today I am noting too many marriages where the woman is the primary breadwinner and is the one to take care of the kids and home. Too many men have decided to live off their wives.
You make an excellent point that a girl on a first date also has the responsibility of being a good guest. That includes being mindful of the cost of the menu. A marriage is supposed to be a partnership with two people working together. Dating isn’t just to find someone you are attracted to. You are also looking for someone who will care about you and make your life better, on both sides.
Today I am noting too many marriages where the woman is the primary breadwinner and is the one to take care of the kids and home. Too many men have decided to live off their wives.
Allan, 53% of the working population is male. Working men outnumber working women in every age category except those under 20. The woman’s share of the working population has changed hardly at all in the last 20 years.
1. Men account for 60% of the managers. Women have an advantage where you’d expect: HR and allied offices, accounting / finance / purchasing, educational administration, social services, public relations.
2. Men account for 75% of the computer professionals
3. Men account for 85% of the engineers
4. Men account for 52% of all scientific and social researchers. Women have a small advantage in biomedical research (~53%) and dominate psychology (69%). Men carry the rest.
5. Men account for 63% of the lawyers
6. Men account for 60% of the physicians and surgeons.
Changes in labor force participation among men between the ages of 25 and 55 declined from 91.8% to 88.5% over a period of 20 years. You also saw a modest decline among women, from 76.1% to 74.3%. The distinction just isn’t that much.
“Allan, 53% of the working population is male. ”
Yes, I believe that to be true, however, it is the scope and type of work that I think would differentiate today’s woman from that woman that existed a long time ago. Immediately after college and before we had children, my wife went to work. She was hired to run an entire department for one of the major US corporations with loads of men and no women. She was very much the exception.
In fact, when he first showed up for work she unloaded her stuff in a cubicle left vacant and one of the men next to her made a rude comment telling her she was the “token woman”. She responded telling him that ‘yes, I am the token woman. Do you see that large office being painted? That is my office and I am your boss’.
Yes, I believe that to be true, however, it is the scope and type of work that I think would differentiate today’s woman from that woman that existed a long time ago.
Women are vastly more likely to be found in high-cachet professional-managerial occupations than they were 60 years ago, but these occupations don’t account for more than about 15% of the workforce. Otherwise, much less has changed than meets the eye. At the height of post-war domesticity in 1957, women made up 1/3 of the workforce. Then as now the trades were a male preserve, clerical work a feminine preserve.
I take your word for the numbers. They prove something not obvious to a number of dullards. Women are different than men and absence from work causes them to seek job opportunities they can return to after they no longer require absence due to childbirth and childcare.
Jordan Peterson’s Rule #31: Do not transform your wife into a maid.
Does he have another rule that states, do not turn your husband into a meal ticket?
Peterson’s not referring to an important problem in domestic relations.
Of course men are meal tickets. That’s not all they are, but that’s a big part of it.
We look at it slightly differently. My wife could earn and I could earn. Money was never a problem after all the debts were paid off and I was rapidly increasing my ability to provide for everything. My wife is my best friend, confident and everything else. I am not her meal ticket and she is not my maid.
“Peterson’s not referring to an important problem in domestic relations.”
As a clinical psychologist who counsels people, Dr. Peterson has probably seen this issue causing problems in enough marriages to warrant his comment.
Obviously there are other issues underlying wives feeling like/being treated like the maid (e.g., effective communication), but apparently enough men end up doing this to earn a nod on his list of life ‘rules’.
Allan,
I was trying to reinforce your comment that “Today I am noting too many marriages where the woman is the primary breadwinner and is the one to take care of the kids and home. Too many men have decided to live off their wives.”
Prarie, I thought that comment did just what you were trying to do and I agree with it.
Allan,
Sorry for misinterpreting you! Your question about women not treating men like meal tickets is not one of his ‘rules’, but overall, I’d say he would agree with you that marriages should be partnerships.
Unfortunately, some of us learn the hard way but those lessons are not easily forgotten. Hope your friend finds what she’s looking for.
It should not be an assumed obligation for males anymore, particularly for the millennial generation or younger. Females now account for more than 50% of university grads and about 50% of the workforce.
Females absolutely need/should have equal rights, but they cannot cherry pick and necessarily keep the favorable things they liked prior to attaining/pursuing equality.
Females now account for more than 50% of university grads and about 50% of the workforce.
It’s 47% of the working population and hasn’t changed in 20 years. Women do make up most of those awarded BA degrees, but the disciplines in which they receive a share in excess of their share of the workforce consist of (1) occupational degrees in trades long dominated by women (e.g. elementary schoolteaching, nursing, dietetics and nutrition &c); (2) performing and studio arts; (3) the humanities. (4) biology and psychology. A great many of those in the last category aspire to be counselors, school psychologists, lab technicians, &c.
The labor market is somewhat segmented. It’s a reasonable inference that formal-education-for-signaling is of greater consequence in the women’s segment.
The ultimate understanding between men and women is that he provides the means for her to build a comfortable home. Some practical adjustments have been made in recent decades, but that’s still the default deal. There are costs out the back end when for whatever reasons this basic understanding is willfully scrapped or must be scrapped.
These situations are a microcosm of domestic life in this respect. Pick up the check. We don’t have to question everything and spin our wheels contemplating everything. And if you cannot afford to take women out, you need to work on getting more of an income stream out of your trade.
Absolutely, he should pay.
What do you think the woman should provide as the quid pro quo?
In this day of women demanding equality and free meals, I think that it is appropriate to ask them to put out.
And they do, so I am happy to buy dinner.
What do you think the woman should provide as the quid pro quo?
Cordiality.
A man should act like a man and pay for it. I don’t care if she makes more money than him. Act like a man.
Yes , payés .
Who should pay for the first date? Why should there be a fixed answer? That might be the first significant interaction between the two parties that are trying to learn about each other. If they can’t figure it out between the two then it doesn’t sound like there is much of a future.
Advice to young women.
Well said, Darren.
I enjoyed your advice Darren. Point one is so obvious that I consider it hardly worth talking about, but as we increase the confusion it bears repeating.
Point two carries some interesting psychological subtext. If a guy is “very vocal” about any subject, he usually has ulterior motives. I understand that a fella needs to pitch his qualities and characteristics on a first date, but I have always been a “if you need to show then you probably don’t know” type of guy. If you know you’re a good guy, you don’t need to “show” it. Just be a good guy and she’ll know.
There are probably a number of good guys that are confused about how to act on a date, but I can think of about five guys that would love to use that confusion detailed in point three to get a girl to pay half of the bill.
As for the final point, all I can say is hilarious. Any man that would dine and dash on a woman should have a scarlet letter A branded in their forehead that lasts a month. The fella that commits ten such offenses, should wear it for one year, and for the man that commits such an offense twenty-five times we would look for something more permanent to affix to his head to warn all future meal seekers.
If I were in charge of establishing such policies, I would also establish punishments for women who reject a date without sufficient reason. (This could be liberating for women won’t tell a fella that they think he’s a pud. “Sorry, but I didn’t want anything branded in my forehead,” they could say to the wounded.) Let’s focus on the men who are cads, but let’s not lose sight of the women that make dating the mostly awful experience it is. I’m so glad it’s over for me.
IMO, you’re all way overthinking this: In my view the rules have never changed and aren’t dependent on whether you’re dating or just friends: it’s bad manners not to offer to pay at least half the check. If you reach for your purse and he says, “I’ve got this.” You either say, “Thanks, next one’s on me” or insist on paying at least half. If you reach and he just sits there and doesn’t offer to pay anything, you interpret based on the circumstances.
I would think whatever principles are encoded by the eventual court ruling would need to be flexible enough to be applied to same-sex dating.
That raises the interesting socio-legal question of whether men are expected to pay for the dinner on the first date.
Is there such a thing as socio-legal? Either it’s decided by law or it is not. Socially, this guy could be an ass using these women for a free meal. These women may also have behaved in a manner where the guy was offended and left the date. Socially, it would seem that would be an acceptable outcome had the roles been reversed. Has he violated any law if the meal was paid for by the party that was left at the table?
All I know is when eating with a republican, watch them, they have a habit of running up the bill and NOT paying the tab.
I have always gone with who asked who. In the cases I have been asked, I let them pay for the meal ( ethical test) and then I pick up the after drinks tab which is often larger.
If you “let” them pay, then you are taking the position of power over your date. Perhaps you can have a conversation and decide together how to handle the payment of the meal and drinks rather than thinking you’re in charge of the decision.
Who pays on the 2nd date?
I dated a woman from Tahiti. She was divorced with adult children.
The first date, I took her to West Point Military Academy for a tour & meal. I paid for every thing. Gas, meals, & snacks.
The second date, I took her to Piermont, NY. A high end restaurant on the Hudson River.
She went into me, me mode. Complaining about allergies, but she ordered the most expensive meal on the menu. I went to the restroom during meal & returned. Tahiti date started complaining again. She targeted a family with 2 little boys in the facility. This facility was huge & L shaped. I had to get out of my chair & look way in the back at a family with 2 little boys. Tahiti woman said that this family should be removed.
I was finishing my meal & the waiter dropped off the bill. I did not look at it, but Tahiti woman said, “you said you’d pay”.
Ugh! I hope that was your last date with Tahiti woman! Rude and selfish 🤮
It was the last date. I hooked up with Tahiti woman’s x-husband. A 3rd date.
He spilled the beans. Tahiti woman is toxic! Waiter came with the bill & x-husband paid for it!
Good call Shannon. It’s a case of moral values. Morals and ethics require thinking and thinking objectively. What are your goals enters into the picture? One may think of the moocher either male or female and liken that to the Congressionals who go to Embassy dinners two and three or more times a week. changing fact finding to fat finding. The embassy officials expect some serious face time not a ‘I have to dash I have a committee meeting as the last slice of pie is devoured.
We saw and awesome display of a lack of moral values in the inquisition by Harris of the nominee for CIA. Clearly the goal was electioneering with not thought as to the reason for the good of the country. That is (Harris) one evil ethic-less, caricature of a politician serving themselves to the last slice of pie mindful of Poke A Haunt Us Warren or a Pelosi or a Schumer.
Schumer sent from almost nightly dining courtesy of the Israeli Embassy and being Israel’s Senator to praying seven times a day and not a thought to is the food kosher, porkless or Burger King. to use food as an anology and polticians as the would be date maker.
The caricatures do not halt on the other side of the aisle. I’m convinced that the aisle or center is a long long way from moral less value less politicals as is the thought of seriously courting the American Citizens
Harris… a demonstration of why Term Limits should be accompanied by Recall. Back to the dinner date that first one is really a test. and a test is based on personal values. First question. Are there any?
I suppose it’s the team mentality that I learned in the service and please don’t remind me of Harris’ atrocious display during the CIA hearing. My blood was boiling. I had to change the channel. Outrageous!
Not only dates. There’s no reason for anyone to pay a lot for food. Eat judiciously. Share some fruit while watching a sunset.
Given that men earn quite a bit more than women, men should offer to pay the whole tab. But some women prefer split checks.
Settle this before sitting down, please.
Doesn’t matter who earns it as much as who gets to spend it
http://www.genderleadershipgroup.com/the-inclusionary-leadership-blog/210
Given that men earn quite a bit more than women,
‘sez who?
Indeed. My wife earns ten times what I do. I say this with pride. She married me.
They do? I must date the wrong men! 😂
Settle this before sitting down, please.
Yup. A mature conversation that reaches an amicable solution will tell each of them a lot about the other even before any food is consumed.
That’s some smooth game you’ve got, Dave: “Want to go out to dinner? Great! How much do you make? Please bring your W2 with you.” Such a turn on!
Since womyn want equality they should pick up the check.
When they earn equal pay.
David Benson – many womyn make more than men. Womyn should always pick up the check.
And they earn equal pay how? College tuitition assistance is a perfect example. The men must sign up for and vounteer to be drafted into the military. The women get free ride and automatic access to the piggy bank. Not realizing they are perpetuating themselves as second class citizens or … baby factories versus cannon fodder. Doesn’t matter it hasn’t been used it’s still coiled up with registration lists waiting for the go signal. But only for the men. A product no doubt of women’s studies in an educational environment where men’s studies are unheard of much less worth two or three credits.
“Tuitition” describes this entire ill-formed paragraph. Irrelevant.
intuititiatively
Male “Tuitition” as opposed to female intuition?
My guess, anyway…
Or a new type of vision screening.
An “i” exam. (D’oh) All those “i(s)” staring back at you. (Stop it!) And they follow you around the room. (“i” can do crazy with the best of ’em).
They do. They also enter and exit the labor force more frequently, work shorter hours, and choose occupations with are less well-compensated. There are always trade-offs.
Yes.
It actually depends on who asked whom on the date and what expectation was made beforehand. This guy is finding excuses to disappear. He sounds like an ass. I don’t think “men” should necessarily pay for the first date however this case is not based on societal norms but deceit.
Right answer.