It isn't clear what it should be called. Most men would prefer to spend no time or money at all on a woman who doesn't or won't genuinely find them attractive. Does a man spending money make him hot if he wasn't before? why do it at all then. Or it's flat out payment for services rendered. That's why (well one reason) internet dating is so popular. No one can claim ignorance of what they are doing.

and they give the rest of us a bad name.

I don't date a guy unless I actually like him and see some possibility of a long-term relationship. First off, I don't think it's fair to continue dating someone if or when you've decided there's no long-term potential. (The exception is if you both agree you're just dating with no eye to the future.) But for the most part, I think it's unfair to string a guy along if he doesn't have a chance.

On a more practical note, I'd rather spend time with friends or doing something constructive than have dinner (free or not) with someone I'm not interested in.

And on my feminist rant - I always plan to pay for myself. Lots of guys won't accept it, and over the years I've given up on arguing too much because some men really do seem offended if I won't let them pay, but I am always more comfortable if I'm taking care of myself. If I've dated a guy for some time and he wants to buy me dinner, or I want to treat him, that's a little different. At some point when you know each other well, you buy gifts or treat each other nicely because you want to do nice things for someone you care about. But during early dates I'd much rather pay my own way. I think feminism is about equality and I think it's hypocritical to spout equal rights yet expect a man to take care of me.

Here's the general etiquitte rule, if someone asks you out as their guest, they pay! If you invite someone out as your guest then you also get to pick the activities and resturants, your fault if you pick the trendiest place in town over some regular Italian place.

I'm sure that there are a few women who will only date well off guys that can take them nice places, but these women are the exception, not the rule and I'm tired of seeing this crap, look at the gold-diggers, hee hee, see women are still manipulative bitches that need to be kept in their place.

When are newpapers gonna write articles on all of the date rape that happens and how a woman can protect herself? How to spot a predatory male 101.

Plus if a man only spends time and money on women to get laid, then he should go to hookers, that is what they are there for.

I no longer go on dates and I no longer ask women out. The last one strung me along through eight dates knowing full well I was so into her and that I thought we were potential soul mates. Her last husband, an old fifty something dog with money who despised her was apparently skilled enough with his seduction to fool her into loving him. What chance does an honest guy stand in light of that?

I do not know what to do as I am very lonely now.

<<Plus if a man only spends time and money on women to get laid, then he should go to hookers, that is what they are there for.>>

prostitution is illegal. I wish it wasn't but women like to control men and men's access to sex.

fiertek:

Are you kidding? How, exactly, can women 'control men's access to sex', beyond the one body they control - their own? You speak of sex as if it's something tangible and separate from the person/s having it -as if sex exists as a 'thing'. Sun, tree, rock, sex - which doesn't belong with the others?

Anyone who buys dinner because they think that there is some 'payoff' (other than companionship during the dinner) owed to them, or that will naturally flow from their largesse, is an idiot, and should just go to a hooker because they are really just trying to buy sex. Alternatively, they should spend five thousand bucks on a 'real doll' - it's a tad more expensive than a few dinners, but you don't have to make any conversation and she never says no.

If it is, indeed, dating, as the author Lynn Harris claims, then why can't the woman pay for her own goddamn dinner? Is Harris suggesting that a woman's company warrants a free dinner, but a man's company is so corrosive he should have to pay for two?

Another vile example of reverse sexism. Has anyone noticed that Salon has been taken over by exactly the sort of women Camille Paglia used to criticize? Is that why she no longer writes for this virtual rag?

The following is taken from Salon (during better days).

"[Monica] Lewinsky and [Naomi] Wolf typify the bankruptcy of the liberal bourgeoisie in this country. Pampered, over-praised, yet neglected by busy, professional parents, they learned to use bratty flirtation and girly glibness to get attention from daddy. No nation in the world has ever produced shiny, hysterical, depthless women quite like these, who as they age find themselves in pitiable free fall."

You could apply that to most of the authors of Broadsheet. Let's dump them all and bring back Camille!