Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

"Foodie Calls"

2

Replies

  • ythannah
    ythannah Posts: 4,187 Member
    I'm pretty introverted and shy so dating has always been a bit of a nightmare for me anyway, and I can't imagine anything worse than going for dinner on a first date. Most of my first dates have involved some kind of shared activity like a walk, or just a coffee. Even at my poorest, living on peanut butter sandwiches, I would never have considered feigning interest in someone to get a free meal.

    I know my friend's daughter, a particularly attractive young woman in her early 20s, bragged about never having to buy a drink when she went to a bar. I guess it is common for young men to send over drinks to tables of lovely young women in the hope of impressing one of them. Not quite the same thing since there is no communication or understanding between the parties regarding expectations.
  • MsCzar
    MsCzar Posts: 754 Member
    I think Helen Gurley Brown went so far as to say that a woman who paid for ANYTHING when a man was willing to pick up the bill was stupid.

    As a young woman, I was much influenced by HGB. Much of her advice still holds true. Currently rereading "Having It All."
  • spinnerdell
    spinnerdell Posts: 213 Member
    Back in the mid 60's I accepted dinner from a much older man (I was 17 or 18 and he was well over 50) purely for the free food. Yep, I still feel bad about it all these years later.
  • DavWillTry
    DavWillTry Posts: 74 Member
    Last time I dated this was still the societal norm. The woman was definitely not taking advantage of the man, it's just the way it was.

    Good thing I'm not dating, now. Faux pas city!
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,425 Member
    Back in the mid 60's I accepted dinner from a much older man (I was 17 or 18 and he was well over 50) purely for the free food. Yep, I still feel bad about it all these years later.

    I don't think you should, especially if you were 17. If he was expecting a romantic relationship with a 17 year old, he was wrong. If he wasn't, and just wanted to buy you a meal and talk for a while, you didn't do anything wrong. Be a little kinder to your 17 year old self. (I'm assuming you were polite to him.)
  • spinnerdell
    spinnerdell Posts: 213 Member
    Back in the mid 60's I accepted dinner from a much older man (I was 17 or 18 and he was well over 50) purely for the free food. Yep, I still feel bad about it all these years later.

    I don't think you should, especially if you were 17. If he was expecting a romantic relationship with a 17 year old, he was wrong. If he wasn't, and just wanted to buy you a meal and talk for a while, you didn't do anything wrong. Be a little kinder to your 17 year old self. (I'm assuming you were polite to him.)

    I was polite but dishonest, not so much in what I said, but in what I didn't say- that I had no romantic interest in him. It wasn't a fancy meal, just a corner cafe, but it loomed large at that time of struggle in my life.
  • Noreenmarie1234
    Noreenmarie1234 Posts: 7,217 Member
    I would never do this as I prefer to eat by myself.
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,270 Member
    "...a foodie call occurs when a person, despite their lack of romantic attraction to someone, agrees to go on a date just to get a free meal

    So basically escort service/prostitution except the payment is a meal instead of cash.
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,270 Member
    edited February 2021
    DavWillTry wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    "...a foodie call occurs when a person, despite their lack of romantic attraction to someone, agrees to go on a date just to get a free meal

    So basically escort service/prostitution except the payment is a meal instead of cash.

    Not really at all. No going with them anywhere, no activities involved. You meet in a restaurant, have a meal, and separate. Doesn't meet your statement at all.

    You are thinking of a person that has sex for money. Other definitions of prostitute out there

    Example:
    A person who does, or offers to do, an activity for money (or food in this case), despite personal dislike or dishonour.

    https://www.yourdictionary.com/prostitute
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,270 Member
    edited February 2021
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    That's a ridiculous definition of "prostitute"--basically anyone with a decent paying job they don't love=a prostitute by that definition.

    Correct interpretation.

    Go debate with the dictionary people.

    Another example: "A person who misuses their talents or who sacrifices their self-respect for the sake of personal or financial gain."

    https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/prostitute
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    We're arguing about the word here.

    I agree that "prostitution" in the common sense doesn't apply to "foodie calls". English words routinely have connotations or conventions that are important to clearest communication, but dictionary definitions don't necessarily capture all the nuance.

    "Escort service", though, maybe, at least in a metaphorical sense? Yeah, I kinda think so, personally. Or maybe a little less defensible behavior than an "escort service". "Escort service" participants on both sides clearly understand the terms of the transaction.

    In the "foodie call" scenario, we have one party who has expectations (reasonable ones, IMO), that "a date" is about getting to know someone, with a view to further dating. The other party doesn't plan to enjoy the first person's company, has no intention of "dating", but is just looking for the compensation of a free meal in return for . . . the pleasure of their golden presence this one time?

    "Freeloader" works for me, too, as does "deceptive", "underhanded", "egotistical", "vain", "exploitive", "cynical" . . . .

    In some contexts, I wouldn't - as I said before - consider it inexcusable behavior, but it's not aboveboard, and is cynically exploitive.

    P.S. I'd use about those same words (and probably some others) if the person buying the meal expected sexual favors in return.

    I agree with you. Although there are obvious exceptions, a hypothetical exchange between a prostitute/escort and a client include both parties choosing to engage in the transaction while knowing the terms.

    To the extent that a guy thinks a woman is interested in a potential relationship when she's only wanting her meal paid for, that's deception.

    If a guy said, "I'd like to buy dinner for an attractive woman and I'd like that woman to be you, no strings attached," I don't see any problem with it. But that's probably not how these invitations are being given. Reasonable women know what a man means when he asks them out to dinner - it's not because he just likes watching a woman eat.
  • spinnerdell
    spinnerdell Posts: 213 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    We're arguing about the word here.

    I agree that "prostitution" in the common sense doesn't apply to "foodie calls". English words routinely have connotations or conventions that are important to clearest communication, but dictionary definitions don't necessarily capture all the nuance.

    "Escort service", though, maybe, at least in a metaphorical sense? Yeah, I kinda think so, personally. Or maybe a little less defensible behavior than an "escort service". "Escort service" participants on both sides clearly understand the terms of the transaction.

    In the "foodie call" scenario, we have one party who has expectations (reasonable ones, IMO), that "a date" is about getting to know someone, with a view to further dating. The other party doesn't plan to enjoy the first person's company, has no intention of "dating", but is just looking for the compensation of a free meal in return for . . . the pleasure of their golden presence this one time?

    "Freeloader" works for me, too, as does "deceptive", "underhanded", "egotistical", "vain", "exploitive", "cynical" . . . .

    In some contexts, I wouldn't - as I said before - consider it inexcusable behavior, but it's not aboveboard, and is cynically exploitive.

    P.S. I'd use about those same words (and probably some others) if the person buying the meal expected sexual favors in return.

    Yes, Ann, you pin down exactly what is problematic with a foodie call.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,870 Member
    edited February 2021
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    In the "foodie call" scenario, we have one party who has expectations (reasonable ones, IMO), that "a date" is about getting to know someone, with a view to further dating. The other party doesn't plan to enjoy the first person's company, has no intention of "dating", but is just looking for the compensation of a free meal in return for . . . the pleasure of their golden presence this one time?

    "Freeloader" works for me, too, as does "deceptive", "underhanded", "egotistical", "vain", "exploitive", "cynical" . . . .

    In some contexts, I wouldn't - as I said before - consider it inexcusable behavior, but it's not aboveboard, and is cynically exploitive.

    I would agree with this.

    I also think the dictionary definition (as you note) does not defend the choice of the term prostitute (I think we are in agreement on this and am not intending to imply otherwise). To explain my position further, it is true that prostituting is used (as an analogy) for debasing one's talents--and I have no issue with people saying that a particular expert witness, say, is basically a prostitute (which I've heard, and of course I know what people sometimes say about lawyers). But (1) this person is not doing that (she is not using talents at all, really); and (2) the sex worker meaning was first and the other is by analogy. So if you call a woman a "prostitute" in this context (the context of someone accepting a date), it is very clear that the intent is to call her a wh*re. (I say wh*re instead or a sex worker because insult is obviously intended, as well as the sexual implication).

    I think calling a woman a prostitute as an insult is not great, and therefore think there's a big difference between that and the words you chose and I agreed with.

    And yes, I'm overthinking this, since I am trying to understand my own instinctive response to that choice of term.