Gretchen Carlson, co-host of Fox and Friends, may play an idiot for TV, but even she can't believe the ridiculous crap coming out of Marc Rudov's mouth.
The self proclaimed (and proud) anti-feminist was discussing Minnesota's decision that ladies night is gender discrimination towards men with Lis Wiehl. That's right, the human rights board of Minnesota is worried about ladies night. Take a minute to absorb that BS.
Anyhow, Rudov and Wiehl make some really stupid points until he says "dating is legal prostitution, if women aren't going to show up unless they are bought and paid for, it's prostitution."
Oy. Oy. Oy. Where to start?
First, the idea that even if you do see ladies night as discrimination, it isn't something that a human rights board should be worried about (like, say, unequal wages or racism when hiring). Bars offering discounts to ladies isn't a big deal. No one is hurting. More women go out to bars, so they earn more profit, and men go to bars to pick up these ladies. It's the best kind of business deal, a deal where everyone wins.
But to call dating prostitution? What the hell does Rudov want-- arranged marriages to eliminate the whole dating shenanigans? Or maybe he thinks women should have to pay half, which is perfectly reasonable and fine. But to call dating prostitution? Give me a break. Buying me dinner doesn't mean you will get a blow job or even a kiss goodnight.
i'm pretty sure new jersey did the same thing like 5 years ago (though for a different reason). just for the sake of argument though, just cause there's more girls at the bar, doesn't mean more guys are going to get any action. so it's not necessarily a "deal where everyone wins."
Actually, I've heard the "dating is prostitution" idea many times.
If you think about it, there is some truth to it. Dating, in its most stereotypical form, is two people going out, and stereotypically, the man is expected to pay. He does this because he hopes that, eventually, whether it be that night or further down the line, he's gonna get some. It's a very crude way of looking at it, and obviously it's not the same principle, but there is some logic there.
@llunachick2319@xanga - But with prostitutes, you're sure to get laid if you pay for it. With dates however, there is no guarantee that somewhere down the line the girl will sleep with the guy. Prostitutes work on a client-basis and it's a profession for them, but I don't know of many professional daters (excluding gold diggers).
i can see dating as prostitution if you expect someone to pay for dinner/buy you things in exchange for your company or, uh, "services." overall, no, but many people unfortunately have those expectations.
First of all, all 3 people in that clip are morons. The guy takes a ridiculous stance...but the two women didn't come off much better since I could not even understand the logic or relevance of their arguments.
Secondly, I have no problem with Ladies Night. Partly cuz who doesn't want more ladies at a bar!? But more importantly, I think there should be minimal regulation when it comes to free enterprise. With that said though, "Ladies Night" is for sure discriminatory. Would people have the exact same view of "Ladies Night" if it were "Men's Night"? Or what about a "Hot girls ages 21-25 Night"? What about a "Caucasian Night"? The simple fact of the matter is, that laws are discriminatory by nature to a degree.
@llunachick2319@xanga - I get your point. I think the word "prostitution" is taking too far because the term implies getting back sexual favors or services. But conceptually, like you said, the logic is that the guy is "paying" for the girl's company. I personally have no problem paying for a date...thats the role I take on. (I don't insist on it and if the girl offers to pay, awesome! Although that usually makes me want to pay for it more cuz its a cool gesture for her to offer). But my point is many girls want the best of both worlds. They don't mind "discriminatory" practices or norms if it favors them but not when it disfavors them.
@mz_d0rkabl3@xanga - For sure this isn't a big majority...but there are a lot of "professional daters" out there to varying degrees of course. I knew several in college and my sister had a friend that was really extreme. They basically "dated" for a living! I mean, always going out to nice restaurants, getting the most expensive meals, and with no intention of forming any kind of relationship. Whilst I lived off of my instant ramen or rice with cheap ban-chan (korean side dishes) and Taco Tuesdays...these girls lived off filet mignon and lobster. That is extreme but there are different degrees...all the way down to something as "innocent" as "yeah i wasn't feelin the guy but at least i really enjoyed my (free) meal!". I knew a girl that would always pay half for the first date. While I would rather pay, I respect that her view on equal rights permeates more than just getting the benefits of both worlds. I also knew a girl that said if she would let the guy pay but if she knew that there was gonna be no second date, she would pay half. I think thats a pretty good compromise/rule.
I don't have any problem with ladies nights. My bigger problem is higher rates for car insurance because I'm a guy. You don't see me ringing up chicks extra for a "menstrual tax", just because statistically that one time during the month they are more disagreeable and unreasonable.
lol dating is NOT prostitution at all! Sure the women are being paid for dinner wise, but there is no guarantee of sex in the end. If he wants to call dating anything along those lines it would be more like an escort. Escorts take someone out to dinner and pay for them, but aren't guaranteed sex. But whatever, it's neither..it's two people going out and having a good time and sometimes the girl even pays (GASP!!!) so would that mean the guy is a prostitute?
As for ladies night, we had that same issue here in Vegas. This lawyer moved here or something, and tried going to a club and they made him pay but the women were free, and he tried to sue over it, and I don't think he won. Like you said, bars and clubs usually do this so they can get more ladies into their clubs, and than the guys come because they want to see the women and try and hook up. If they made ladies pay all the time, the club would be mostly filled with guys and no guy wants that. The whole issue will be around for a while though, some guys won't think it's fair and will try and argue it. What can ya really do?
I agree with Marc. I think all of you women/men who disagree are just having a knee-jerk reaction to the word "prostitution." If we were somehow able to take a look at every date that is going on tonight, Saturday night, right now, we'd see some ending in sex, some won't. If we separated the ones that ended in sex and were able to turn back time to the point at which the man/woman met and the guy bought her a drink or two, and instead, he didn't buy her a drink, what do you think the result would be? Is there anyone out there who thinks not buying drink (aka paying for her) wouldn't result in not "getting any"? Seriously, not only not getting sex, not getting phone number, not keeping her attention during the evening because as the "nice guy" who isn't even looking to have sex, it's hard to compete with other the players who send a drink over. If I'm not buying her drinks, she get up or walk away. I'm not saying this has happened, as I rarely go to bars, but c'mon, this would be the situation 90% of the time. And ya know what? That's just like the street corner hooker or lapdancer at a strip joint - if you're not paying her, she's on her way!
On a related note, if a guy goes out to the bar with the guys and asks a girl to dance or asks for her phone number - he's cheating. If his girlfriend goes out with her girlfriends with a nite out with the girls, and she dances with guys and drinks their drinks... somehow that's okay? She's fishing as much as he is, but if she doesn't find what she wants, she writes it off as a girls night out. Unfair.
the nightclubs are the biggest pimps here. men pay to get into the club to see the sexy ladies and might want to get laid but it isn't guaranteed that one lady will go home with him. he might as well pay for a real prostitute and get sex without having to be rejected by like 30 ladies at the club, so he pays to have his ego run over while the ladies get into the club for free and get free drinks she might agree to date him later and get a free dinner and still deny him sexual favors. I think these bitter men degrade women as prostitutes because they are bitter that they shelled out money on women and she didn't necessarily put out, but that's part of the chase, that she doesn't give in too easily at his demand. if the guy has natural charm, I don't think he even needs to wine and dine her in hopes of more.
No with prostitution you’re guaranteed to get what you paid for and if you don't like her she leaves and if you do, call her up and do it all over again. Ladies night is almost guaranteed to have the ratio right, sort of like a soft scantily clad, well made up, victoriabodyworks&beyond splashed meat market. However, it is a form of discrimination.
That's hard bullcrap! I've paid for almost every date between me and my dear since... Well, our second month dating. I have a job, and he doesn't have money often so... Yeah, no. He's just completely wrong on the whole 'if it's not paid for, the chick isn't gonna show' thing. That and everything else >:(
@wizexel22@xanga - That's how a friend of mine is. She'd meet random guys, go on dates & let them pay for everything. If she sees something she wants in a store, she'll do the lil kid 'I wish I had that...' until the guy gives in & buys it for her. She hardly ever has the intention of actually dating him for him..usually she'll date guys for sex, money & whatever he buys her. It finally bit her in the ass.. She's prego with twins hahaha...
As for me, I rarely let the guy pay because I'm thinking he'll probably want something in return. I don't ask a guy for money, nor do I expect him to buy me anything.
I think... if you want to get very technical, if a woman expects a man to pay for her in exchange for her company (in essence, the presence of her body) it is "prostitution." She is selling her time (the presence of her body, thus her body) in exchange for something else- a meal or a movie.
I don't think this makes it wrong. Actually I do think women should expect to pay for themselves. But still.
If you want to be TECHNICAL, he's correct.
And as far as ladies' night goes, it's only sexist if everyone decides it would be wrong to have a gentlemen's night. Both must be considered equally fair (but both don't have to occur).
"Women aren't entitled to free anything", and "if women aren't going to show up unless they are bought and paid for, it's prostitution."
Marc Rudov for govenor! He's just telling it the way it is. He's the only one making sense in that Fox News clip and every other Fox broadcast featuring him in debate.
Read it again: "if women aren't going to show up unless they are bought and paid for, it's prostitution". Gals who do this are selling their presence for drinks.
Otherwise, guys, gals like these aren't going to bars to see you but for what they can get for free out of you for their mere presence. You're not so charming afterall, it seems. Any guy can buy this type of a gal with a drink. Sure, go ahead and do it on your own private time but by doing so and insisting others do the same makes every other man appear desparate for female company.