Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,622 posts, read 17,953,728 times
Reputation: 50641
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname
Lol.... So when women do that do THEY go to jail!?!
(We would have to build more jails)
Well, I think they should be charged if they leave before the bill arrives. They should be held accountable for the amount of the check they ordered and ate, if they dined and dashed on a date before the bill arrived.
And if they kind of got a weird vibe from their date, they should hand their waiter a 20 (or whatever amount is appropriate) on their way out the door if they were unhappy with their date, to cover the amount they ordered.
Well, I think they should be charged if they leave before the bill arrives. They should be held accountable for the amount of the check they ordered and ate, if they dined and dashed on a date before the bill arrived.
And if they kind of got a weird vibe from their date, they should hand their waiter a 20 (or whatever amount is appropriate) on their way out the door if they were unhappy with their date, to cover the amount they ordered.
(Again).
The point being:
The only reason this is need is because it's a guy for once.
(Speking as the guy who pays, and HAS taken first dates to nice\expensive places on the first date, just because I wanted to go there.)
(Again).
The point being:
The only reason this is need is because it's a guy for once.
(Speking as the guy who pays, and HAS taken first dates to nice\expensive places on the first date, just because I wanted to go there.)
In order for women to have done the equivalent "crime" as this guy has done, they would have had to:
1) Asked the guy out first (which implies they will pay for everything) AND/OR
2) Disappear before the bill is brought--when it was agreed that they would go dutch or she would pay for everything.
Most of these "dinner hoe" ladies will stick it out for the whole date; they just aren't interested in a relationship.
It's not a nice thing to do, but it's not illegal. The advice in that article says that the "victim" should ask to have the check split. The "sneater" presumably would still be present when the check was brought and would then have to pay their half. Therefore, "sneating" doesn't follow the same pattern of the guy we're talking about here.
He invited the women (or at least they didn't invite HIM) AND he didn't even pay his half of the check, but left before there could be any discussion of how the check could be split.
Sneaters don't typically do that. They just count on the "victim" paying everything and often the victims do. But, if confronted, many "sneaters" would likely be shamed into paying their half.
So, to repeat, women who "sneat" are NOT like this guy, assuming that they stay for the whole date and allow the man to pay. The sneaters may have been dishonest in their reasons for agreeing to the date but if they were present for the whole thing and the date paid for the dinner willingly, then there is no theft.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,622 posts, read 17,953,728 times
Reputation: 50641
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
In order for women to have done the equivalent "crime" as this guy has done, they would have had to:
1) Asked the guy out first (which implies they will pay for everything) AND/OR
2) Disappear before the bill is brought--when it was agreed that they would go dutch or she would pay for everything.
Most of these "dinner hoe" ladies will stick it out for the whole date; they just aren't interested in a relationship.
It's not a nice thing to do, but it's not illegal. The advice in that article says that the "victim" should ask to have the check split. The "sneater" presumably would still be present when the check was brought and would then have to pay their half. Therefore, "sneating" doesn't follow the same pattern of the guy we're talking about here.
He invited the women (or at least they didn't invite HIM) AND he didn't even pay his half of the check, but left before there could be any discussion of how the check could be split.
Sneaters don't typically do that. They just count on the "victim" paying everything and often the victims do. But, if confronted, many "sneaters" would likely be shamed into paying their half.
So, to repeat, women who "sneat" are NOT like this guy, assuming that they stay for the whole date and allow the man to pay. The sneaters may have been dishonest in their reasons for agreeing to the date but if they were present for the whole thing and the date paid for the dinner willingly, then there is no theft.
Elvira, you're writing this as if you're blogging about etiquette, not law. Etiquette is very nuanced, there's a lot of presuming, and things that go unsaid but are implied.
Law isn't like that. "Do you have a contract? No. Hmm, that's not good at all. Do you have any evidence there was a 'meeting of the minds?' Uh no, it's just usually done this way, I thought. Oh no, not good at all".
Making a man criminally responsible for the food his date ate (but in some cases she actually brought no means to pay for) is a legal concept, not an etiquette one.
Lol.... So when women do that do THEY go to jail!?!
(We would have to build more jails)
You’re not reading my posts, I have answered that enough times already. I myself haven’t heard of any women doing this, but I don’t doubt there are female con artists and scammers as well. If they committed this crime, sure they’d get arrested IF someone made it known like the first woman did. If they just go home and keep quiet, then no she wouldn’t get arrested, how could she?
Elvira, you're writing this as if you're blogging about etiquette, not law. Etiquette is very nuanced, there's a lot of presuming, and things that go unsaid but are implied.
Law isn't like that. "Do you have a contract? No. Hmm, that's not good at all. Do you have any evidence there was a 'meeting of the minds?' Uh no, it's just usually done this way, I thought. Oh no, not good at all".
Making a man criminally responsible for the food his date ate (but in some cases she actually brought no means to pay for) is a legal concept, not an etiquette one.
Then don't make him criminally responsible for the food his date ate. Make him criminally responsible for the food he ate and didn't pay for.
Which is what he did.
But I was talking about more than that. Some people here are trying to claim that what he did is the equivalent to what "sneaters" do, but it doesn't appear that it is. "Sneaters" rely on their date (usually a man) paying for the WHOLE meal, willingly paying for it, while the "sneater" sits there.
This guy didn't wait for the whole dinner to be finished and then somehow finagle the woman into paying for it all. He just took off, leaving her to pay for everything. He didn't even pay for his half. He's not a "sneater," he's scammer.
I don't know how the police tallied up all that he "stole," but clearly the guy is a scammer, also famous for dashing after getting his hair done and not paying. The police wanted to nab him and they finally did.
SAHMs are not "kept women". In some ways if she's providing childcare so they don't have to spend 40K a year on daycare or nanny fees. Here is some reading to get you started: https://newschannel9.com/news/local/...er-the-country
You talk like a feminist but then proceed to bash stay at home mothers.
Oh and by the way, I'm a SAHM and I have my own bank account. In my own name, separate from my husband's. Believe it or not. I'm far from being financially dependent on him.
You are a bit defensive aren't you. I'm not bashing SAHMs. Your the one saying " women (generally speaking) should stop being financially dependent on men. And stop seeing men as walking wallets." or at least agreeing with it. I stated I don't know women who do that. But yes SAHM are financially dependent on their husbands. Any person that does not generate their own income is financially dependent on someone else.
You are a bit defensive aren't you. I'm not bashing SAHMs. Your the one saying " women (generally speaking) should stop being financially dependent on men. And stop seeing men as walking wallets." or at least agreeing with it. I stated I don't know women who do that. But yes SAHM are financially dependent on their husbands. Any person that does not generate their own income is financially dependent on someone else.
Many SAHMs have their own source of income. They aren't all financially dependent just because they are at home with kids. And the financial dependence goes both ways, because if the SAHM died suddenly, her husband would be on the hook for childcare expenses. He'd have to find a nanny or pay for full time daycare. You fail to see how being a stay at home parent is a financial benefit. You probably think stay at home parents just watch TV all day long.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
