"Foodie Calls"

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.

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.

janejellyroll wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

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'm far too old to know what mores and social expectations the average young woman has absorbed these days, but I know that growing up in the 60s and 70s I absorbed the social expectation that in general, it was rude for a girl/woman to say no, and that generally the only acceptable reason to refuse a request to go out with a man was if you were already previously engaged (legitimately, not a made-up excuse). I have a vivid memory of a friend being asked by a guy to go swimming and her struggling for a way to say no and answer his "why not?" because her legitimate excuse was that she was having her period, which (in those days), of course she couldn't tell him (because men had to be sheltered from those dirty facts about women) (and, yes, in those days, girls did not go swimming when they had their period).

I now think this expectation is completely insane, and just basically part and parcel of the idea some men have that women should meet their expectations/demands to smile, engage in conversation, and generally behave in whatever manner those men want. But I don't know how much those expectations are still being grilled into young women.

Perspective from someone in her 40s: when I was a young woman, it felt like more of a mixed message. It was okay to say "no" to a guy you weren't interested in, but there were also expectations that your *motivations* for saying "no" shouldn't be shallow or indicate that you thought you were above the guy asking you out.

It was kind of like the expectation that a young woman never say "no," but weirdly more internalized to be that a woman shouldn't WANT to say no to guys for self-centered or self-interested reasons.

I do think that at least some of the guys who claim women are using them for food are women who said "yes" to give a guy an honest chance (like many of us are expected to do, at least when I was younger) and realize over the course of the date that there's nothing there to build on. The guy feels used, but it's just a set of two different cultural expectations colliding.

(Note: I know that some women are straightforward about how they're using men for food, I know it really is happening in some cases).

I would be interested to hear what it's like for young women today, if there's still that expectation that women should WANT to be available for guys who are interested in them.

I'm older than you, but just wanted to say that while the message when I was growing up was not "a woman should never say no" (in fact, it would have been seen as wrong to say yes if not interested), but "a woman shouldn't WANT to say no to guys for self-centered or self-interested reasons" really rings true to me as the message that I internalized.

I would say that if it happens as presented (woman cynically going to get food, not interested, openly telling her friends that's the case), then I think it is as Ann characterized it. I have been wondering, to some extent, whether this is actually a common thing, as it doesn't seem like it to me, and there are lots of reasons someone might accept a date and then seem uninterested (including just a bad date). However, my understanding was that this is not about men who later think they are being used for food -- which I am sure happens outside the context of "foodie calls" -- but women who straight out say they did that, and did that to avoid having to pay for food.

Anyway, to follow up what you said, I was pretty insecure in my 20s, including about my own ability to know if I could be potentially interested in someone, and I would have a hard time saying "no, I'm just not interested," since in the back of my mind I'd be thinking "maybe I could be." I also would second guess myself since at times I knew I would be potentially interested in someone until he expressed interest in me, and then I'd either think there must be something seriously wrong with him or I'd just get scared and that would cause me to be uncomfortable around him. What that meant was that I engaged in a lot of interested/avoidance type behavior that likely was incredibly confusing, and which I feel somewhat guilty about looking back.

But since this would be even worse AFTER I went out with someone, I would be much more likely to make up some excuse for not being able to go in the first place (although I did struggle with just saying "no thanks, not interested") and would try to (perhaps not clearly enough) indicate in other ways that the person was someone I thought of as friend only.

I also did generally insist on going dutch when I did go out with some guy, because of the fear of leading someone on or feeling awkward about if he would think I was, when really I just didn't know how I felt.

Because of my insecurity/hot and cold "I don't know how I feel, what's wrong with me" stuff, I have done things that may have been interpreted by the guy as analogous to a foodie call (I went to the opera with a guy who asked me and said he had an extra ticket, I offered to pay but didn't push it), but at that time I wanted to be interested in the person (he was quite a bit older, nice guy, I wanted to be in a relationship and was trying to push myself to take more chances in that area). During that period and before, I am also pushed away guys (or made it abundantly clear I thought of them as a friend only, without meaning to) whom I later found out had been interested, and whom I would have been interested in, but didn't want them to think I was. So eh, people can be messed up about romantic stuff.

janejellyroll wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

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'm far too old to know what mores and social expectations the average young woman has absorbed these days, but I know that growing up in the 60s and 70s I absorbed the social expectation that in general, it was rude for a girl/woman to say no, and that generally the only acceptable reason to refuse a request to go out with a man was if you were already previously engaged (legitimately, not a made-up excuse). I have a vivid memory of a friend being asked by a guy to go swimming and her struggling for a way to say no and answer his "why not?" because her legitimate excuse was that she was having her period, which (in those days), of course she couldn't tell him (because men had to be sheltered from those dirty facts about women) (and, yes, in those days, girls did not go swimming when they had their period).

I now think this expectation is completely insane, and just basically part and parcel of the idea some men have that women should meet their expectations/demands to smile, engage in conversation, and generally behave in whatever manner those men want. But I don't know how much those expectations are still being grilled into young women.

Perspective from someone in her 40s: when I was a young woman, it felt like more of a mixed message. It was okay to say "no" to a guy you weren't interested in, but there were also expectations that your *motivations* for saying "no" shouldn't be shallow or indicate that you thought you were above the guy asking you out.

It was kind of like the expectation that a young woman never say "no," but weirdly more internalized to be that a woman shouldn't WANT to say no to guys for self-centered or self-interested reasons.

I do think that at least some of the guys who claim women are using them for food are women who said "yes" to give a guy an honest chance (like many of us are expected to do, at least when I was younger) and realize over the course of the date that there's nothing there to build on. The guy feels used, but it's just a set of two different cultural expectations colliding.

(Note: I know that some women are straightforward about how they're using men for food, I know it really is happening in some cases).

I would be interested to hear what it's like for young women today, if there's still that expectation that women should WANT to be available for guys who are interested in them.

Thanks. I appreciate the update in perspective from a later generation.

My mother passed along some dating advice from her youth in Maryland in the 1930's. "it's just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as a poor one." I think she would have had no problem with a foodie call.

lemurcat2 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

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'm far too old to know what mores and social expectations the average young woman has absorbed these days, but I know that growing up in the 60s and 70s I absorbed the social expectation that in general, it was rude for a girl/woman to say no, and that generally the only acceptable reason to refuse a request to go out with a man was if you were already previously engaged (legitimately, not a made-up excuse). I have a vivid memory of a friend being asked by a guy to go swimming and her struggling for a way to say no and answer his "why not?" because her legitimate excuse was that she was having her period, which (in those days), of course she couldn't tell him (because men had to be sheltered from those dirty facts about women) (and, yes, in those days, girls did not go swimming when they had their period).

I now think this expectation is completely insane, and just basically part and parcel of the idea some men have that women should meet their expectations/demands to smile, engage in conversation, and generally behave in whatever manner those men want. But I don't know how much those expectations are still being grilled into young women.

Perspective from someone in her 40s: when I was a young woman, it felt like more of a mixed message. It was okay to say "no" to a guy you weren't interested in, but there were also expectations that your *motivations* for saying "no" shouldn't be shallow or indicate that you thought you were above the guy asking you out.

It was kind of like the expectation that a young woman never say "no," but weirdly more internalized to be that a woman shouldn't WANT to say no to guys for self-centered or self-interested reasons.

I do think that at least some of the guys who claim women are using them for food are women who said "yes" to give a guy an honest chance (like many of us are expected to do, at least when I was younger) and realize over the course of the date that there's nothing there to build on. The guy feels used, but it's just a set of two different cultural expectations colliding.

(Note: I know that some women are straightforward about how they're using men for food, I know it really is happening in some cases).

I would be interested to hear what it's like for young women today, if there's still that expectation that women should WANT to be available for guys who are interested in them.

I'm older than you, but just wanted to say that while the message when I was growing up was not "a woman should never say no" (in fact, it would have been seen as wrong to say yes if not interested), but "a woman shouldn't WANT to say no to guys for self-centered or self-interested reasons" really rings true to me as the message that I internalized.

I would say that if it happens as presented (woman cynically going to get food, not interested, openly telling her friends that's the case), then I think it is as Ann characterized it. I have been wondering, to some extent, whether this is actually a common thing, as it doesn't seem like it to me, and there are lots of reasons someone might accept a date and then seem uninterested (including just a bad date). However, my understanding was that this is not about men who later think they are being used for food -- which I am sure happens outside the context of "foodie calls" -- but women who straight out say they did that, and did that to avoid having to pay for food.

Anyway, to follow up what you said, I was pretty insecure in my 20s, including about my own ability to know if I could be potentially interested in someone, and I would have a hard time saying "no, I'm just not interested," since in the back of my mind I'd be thinking "maybe I could be." I also would second guess myself since at times I knew I would be potentially interested in someone until he expressed interest in me, and then I'd either think there must be something seriously wrong with him or I'd just get scared and that would cause me to be uncomfortable around him. What that meant was that I engaged in a lot of interested/avoidance type behavior that likely was incredibly confusing, and which I feel somewhat guilty about looking back.

But since this would be even worse AFTER I went out with someone, I would be much more likely to make up some excuse for not being able to go in the first place (although I did struggle with just saying "no thanks, not interested") and would try to (perhaps not clearly enough) indicate in other ways that the person was someone I thought of as friend only.

I also did generally insist on going dutch when I did go out with some guy, because of the fear of leading someone on or feeling awkward about if he would think I was, when really I just didn't know how I felt.

Because of my insecurity/hot and cold "I don't know how I feel, what's wrong with me" stuff, I have done things that may have been interpreted by the guy as analogous to a foodie call (I went to the opera with a guy who asked me and said he had an extra ticket, I offered to pay but didn't push it), but at that time I wanted to be interested in the person (he was quite a bit older, nice guy, I wanted to be in a relationship and was trying to push myself to take more chances in that area). During that period and before, I am also pushed away guys (or made it abundantly clear I thought of them as a friend only, without meaning to) whom I later found out had been interested, and whom I would have been interested in, but didn't want them to think I was. So eh, people can be messed up about romantic stuff.

Yes, this is exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of. Many of us were taught to be nice and give a guy a chance even if we don't feel immediately attracted. So we go on the date and the guy later feels like he's been used.

And from his perspective, I can see how he would conclude that. But what's missing here is the understanding that some women are doing this because we've been told it's what we're SUPPOSED to do to avoid being shallow.