I...what? This is actually...going to court? Asshole, women's bodies are not a public resource. Therefore, they do not have to obey anti-discrimination laws. How dense can you be? What is this woman, an equal-opportunity employer? Talk about the male delusion of having a "right" to a woman's body.

I love how it's a shattering shock to him to be told that a teenager just might not want to fuck a man old enough to be her great-grandfather. Maybe he would have felt better if she'd said "You're just too ugly."

[Shudder]

Surely this will get thrown out. This is ridiculous. Ageism? Do women in his universe not have the right to choose their sexual partners? Ugh!

Excuse me while I laugh my ass off...

*whew* okay. Now, if there was every anything as telling about (some) men's attitudes towards dating this is it. I had a friend who also believed that if you took a girl out and bought her food and took her to a movie, then you'd rented her vagina in exchange. He was getting upset because he'd been dating and women were sleeping with him, so he felt cheated. We no longer speak.

I would love to see where this case goes, if you get anymore updates.

They actually...accepted this at the prosecutor's office? I mean, instead of going into hysterics and laughing until he got bored and left? I'm having trouble believing that was even allowed.

What?! This is too insane to be believed!

So accepting a dinner with a guy automatically means the woman is expected to sleep with him???? I think I'll become a cat lady if that's the case...

His poor, fragile ego. Boo effing hoo.

It's even more telling of his sleaziness and hypocrisy that near the end of the article he says, "And there are some women who are too old for me." Wow, would those women have to be like, 100?

Kimmy -
Maybe they accepted it so they could run off and tell the press - you know, share the hilarity with the rest of us.

On a related note, my favorite Irish Toast:
"May you die in bed at 95, shot by a jealous spouse."
(I particularly love the fact that it's not gender-specific.)

HA!! Yeah, good luck with that ya rotten old fart.

What a joke!!

Maybe it's different in Germany, but this sounds like a civil suit - not sure why a prosecutor would be involved. Perhaps it's a mis-translation or "prosecutor" means something different in Germany.

What a loser. I just finished working on a case where a 59-year-old man insisted that his 19-year-old victim consented to sex with him. Technically possible - but I highly doubt it. Go ahead and call me an ageist, but YUCK!

To be absolutely fair, she should not have gone out with him, or at least made it clear that she was doing so as a friend, if she thought he was too old for her. It does sound like she was a bit of a jerk about it... and yet.

Complain to the bartender, dude, don't SUE her. She has every right to turn down an invitation for sex for any reason. Guess what? A black man can't sue a white woman who turns him down for sex because of his race, a woman can't sue another woman for turning her down because of her sex, and you can't sue a girl because she decided you were too old, however she may have led you on.

Sometimes I feel very lucky that I wound up with a guy who not only didn't EXPECT me to have sex after the first date, but who would have respected me less if I had.

I've had to deal with people who thought they were entitled to my body my whole life. Before my transition, it was gay men and the occasional straight woman. Now it's straight men and the occasional lesbian. I'd thought I'd seen everything. I thought I was being hypersensitive because I'm largely asexual.

But THIS....Wow. Just wow.

Basionara, are you kidding me? You're with someone who would respect you less for having sex with him, even though he would also be involved in having sex? What kind of sexist double standard is that?
As for this...I don't care if this is in a civil court, no one should hear the case...I would go on, but my views have already been stated by other people on here, so it would be a little redundant.

"I...what? This is actually...going to court? Asshole, women's bodies are not a public resource. Therefore, they do not have to obey anti-discrimination laws. How dense can you be? What is this woman, an equal-opportunity employer? Talk about the male delusion of having a 'right' to a woman's body."

Indeed. I'm reminded of a comment posted to an article I recently mentioned at the Weekly Feminist Reader thread:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7057929.stm

"Many disabled people have difficulty with having relationships, in particular those with Asperser Syndrome and autism...So, because of my disability, society does not want me to be the same as other people? That is unfair."
- George, UK

Now, autism and Asperger's hurt the ability to learn *social skills*.

Am I an anti-Aspie bigot because I'd rather lose my virginity in a loving relationship than with some guy who can't even be my friend let alone my lover?

Meanwhile, will George feel entitled to a taxi-driving job if he loses his eyesight too?

Toward the end of the article Eden says, "And there are some women who are too old for me. But in that case you have to be more diplomatic and say, 'Sorry, you're not my type.'"

What a bitch! On top of daring to refuse to provide one of her betters with something she'd clearly contracted to give him, she didn't even have the common decency to pretend the denial stemmed from some defect on her part! Thank the gods someone's teaching her a lesson about deferring to her eld— um, superiors.

I hate George from the UK. First of all, autism does make you not the same as people without autism. That's a fact. That's why there's a special name for it.

I wonder if George has looked into dating and sleeping with autistic women, who might not place as much value on the social skills he has difficulty with? Or perhaps he has offered his services to gay men with autism?

Oh. He feels entitled to the buxom, non-disabled pin-up of his dreams? Fancy that. Male privilege dressed in disability clothing.

"You're just not my type. I prefer who aren't skeezy assholes."

Er, "something" was meant to say "a service," but my attention was divided between typing the comment and watching the Sox game.

"There are a few years separating us," the almost-octogenarian admits. "And there are some women who are too old for me. But in that case you have to be more diplomatic and say, 'Sorry, you're not my type.'"

It would be much more tactful to say that he is too sleazy rather than too old. Or that she is not partial to hunchbacks ("not that there is anything wrong in it").

I think that this is a publicity stunt. Pretty positive, in fact. My bet is that his press agent send the story to journalists without waiting for a court to accept the case. The guy is a professional sleasemeister.

To be absolutely fair, she should not have gone out with him, or at least made it clear that she was doing so as a friend, if she thought he was too old for her.

Posted by: Basiorana

She may have assumed that was the case. It may have been unfathomable to her young perhaps naive self that a 77 year old would have any interest in having a sexual relationship with someone her age.
Or maybe she thought she might be interested (*shudder*) but was skeezed out when the date got underway.
Anyway, this guy is the Emperor of Douchebagdom.

just wondering - how bad does a bad publicity stunt have to be not to be taken seriously? I mean, come on, a) there is absolutely no legal basis (except, possibly, cf below...) and b) a playboy attempting to sue a woman for not sleeping with him? Wow, I'd just let him enjoy the shame of having to plead *that* case before court if it actually were admissible... thanks for the good laugh :)

Interestingly, though - the German anti-discrimination law is obliging "routine providers of products of services" not to discriminate according to gender, ethnicity, religion, age, disability, and sexual orientation. I recently had a chat with a lawyer if a prostitute (legal service in Germany) could be sued based on the anti-discrimination law if she refused to service a client based on his age or ethnicity, etc. - the lawyer wasn't sure, but he did not rule out that prostitution could be considered a a "routine service" in certain circumstance and thus be subject to the anti-discrimination law.

So, if the 19yo woman in the article was a prostitute, Eden's lawsuit may possibly have a legal basis. But man that would be even more embarrassing ;)

Re that George in the UK issue - the article is about the question whether it should be acceptable for disabled people to visit prostitutes. Different thing in my opinion. Also - funny recommendation re "dating autistic women". Did you watch rain man...?

You can't just sue someone for being ageist, like you can't just sue someone for being sexist or racist. You can sue someone for refusing to hire you because you are a woman, or not renting you an apartment because you are black, ect, but not just because they are a general moron.

Re: german prostitutes: I would imagine that prostitutes are allowed to exercise discretion in their jobs. They are not obliged to sleep with any customer who propositions them. So I don't think that the discrimination law would apply to them.

"To be absolutely fair, she should not have gone out with him, or at least made it clear that she was doing so as a friend, if she thought he was too old for her.

"Posted by: Basiorana

"She may have assumed that was the case. It may have been unfathomable to her young perhaps naive self that a 77 year old would have any interest in having a sexual relationship with someone her age.
"Or maybe she thought she might be interested (*shudder*) but was skeezed out when the date got underway."

...or maybe she doesn't think consenting to a date = consenting to sex? Lots of people go on first dates without wanting sex on first dates, after all...

"Re: german prostitutes: I would imagine that prostitutes are allowed to exercise discretion in their jobs. They are not obliged to sleep with any customer who propositions them."

What if she doesn't want to sleep with any customer who propositions her, and only took the job in the first place because she had to take the first job offered in order to keep her food stamps? Would her employer still oblige her to sleep with at least some of those customers she doesn't want? I'm reminded of the possibility outlined here:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/12/18929.html

"...The legalisation of prostitution was a victory for campaigners, often feminists, who for ideological reasons treat prostitution as 'normal work'. Their attitude is symbolised by the politically correct term 'sex worker' for prostitutes - I am deliberately not using it. The 'campaign' in the Netherlands was low-key, and spread over many years: prostitution was never a big political issue. These campaigners forget, that the unemployed (in most countries) are legally required to accept 'normal work'. In the Netherlands, they were indirectly creating an obligation to work as a prostitute. The same will happen in other countries, if prostitution is normalised to the same extent. (Similar legislation is being considered in Germany, with the same ideological background)..."

Hey Mina,

I actually went and looked that one up, because I'd read about it in so many different places, and Snopes says it's an urban legend:

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp

Hmmm...now I know what to do when a guy rejects me. I'll sue for sizeism!!

/sarcasm

This whole "if I buy you dinner/drinks, you owe me sex." thing has always baffled me. Do women as a whole look that hungry and thirsty that we need to prostitute ourselves to get a meal/drink? I've been through some bad times in my life, but I've never been that hungry.

I think this dude is just self-publicising for effect (he has a business to run, right?) because there's lots about ageism and the legal ramifications of it in German public discourse/media right now.

Mina, not true - check the last pages of this German government report (in English, pdf) on the legal changes and the social situation of prostitutes in Germany (since 2001). Note - legal changes were implemented by a social democrat/green party coalition goverment, the report was edited by a Christian democrat / social democrat coalition government (a bit more to the right).

I bet that poor woman under him wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Really?

This is how we prove he is a creep, we insult his manhood? This is the kind of not so subtle gendered inferences I don't expect to see on this site.

This isn't a laughing matter at all. No matter how stupid and frivolous this lawsuit is, the poor girl is still going to have to hire a lawyer at $250/hr (yeah, that's $10,000 a week) to defend herself, not to mention take a bunch of days off work to meet with her lawyers and go to court, etc. This guy will bleed her dry for a few months, then drop the case when he gets tired of it. She can then go even deeper into debt trying to sue him to recover her court costs, but by then she will already most likely be penniless. This lawsuit is worthless of course, but since he is only looking for revenge and can afford to buy it, he can only win and she can only lose. Poor girl--she's totally screwed. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

Oh, and to comment on 's post: yes, a black man CAN sue a white woman who turns him down for sex because of his race. All he needs is a slimy lawyer and a few thousand bucks for a retainer. I can sue my neighbor because the sky above my house is too blue or because it is Tuesday or because I just feel like it. I wouldn't win if the case ever went to court, of course, but if I wanted to spend the money to make someone miserable (and could find someone to represent me) I could do some serious personal financial damage.

I didn't think it was very funny either. Not b/c of the financial cost to the young woman in question, b/c I just didn't even think about it, but b/c that's awful. Even as a publicity stunt, you know there's some guy out there who's thinking that he ought to be able to sue the bitch who didn't fuck him last night after he bought her tickets to a movie! I would hope that whomever the case gets to, prosecuter, judge, random filing clerk..., doesn't go, hahahaha, hilarious! What a moron! This is hysterical! I'll just keep chuckling until he goes away! I hope they tell him that, not only does he emphatically not have a case, but that he's a disgusting excuse for a person for even pursuing litigation in the first place. Publicity stunt or not.

I didn't think it was very funny either. Not b/c of the financial cost to the young woman in question, b/c I just didn't even think about it, but b/c that's awful. Even as a publicity stunt, you know there's some guy out there who's thinking that he ought to be able to sue the bitch who didn't fuck him last night after he bought her tickets to a movie! I would hope that whomever the case gets to, prosecuter, judge, random filing clerk..., doesn't go, hahahaha, hilarious! What a moron! This is hysterical! I'll just keep chuckling until he goes away! I hope they tell him that, not only does he emphatically not have a case, but that he's a disgusting excuse for a person for even pursuing litigation in the first place. Publicity stunt or not.

I'm sure this will get thrown out of court. As Lucie pointed out, you can't sue someone just for discriminating against you; they have to be withholding some essential service due to discrimination.

@Piccolo: most of the truly ridiculous lawsuits we hear about get thrown out before they reach court. The major reason they get in the news in the first place (much less have the stories written to seem as though they were accepted as legitimate cases) is because of the tort-reform lobby. Said lobby also spins news of legitimate cases to sound like the plaintiffs are foolish crybabies (eg. the McDonald's coffee case).

Chances are what happened here is that the woman decided, "Hey, I'll try going to dinner with this guy, see if I like him enough to take things farther" and discovered over the course of the meal what an ass her date was. She decided to brush him off with, "You're too old," because it's more polite than "You're a douchebag".

"I bet that poor woman under him wouldn't be able to tell the difference."

Wow.

Clearly this guy is enough of an asshole that you didn't need to add an ageist, one-liner insult to this post. I am disappointed in the lack of respect here for human sexuality at all ages and for loving, sexual relationships between differently aged individuals.

Next time you feel a gut instinct of "ugh" when thinking about people a few generations apart having sex, remind yourself that many people get that feeling when thinking about two ladies doing it. My point being: perhaps your reaction is based more on what mainstream society says is natural than on what is honest and perfectly healthy (between consenting adults, of course).

Just to clear things up: It is not clear yet, if this thing will go to court. Most likely it wont. He filed charges and now the Staatsanwalt decides if it will, but I highly doubt it.
This is just a publicity stunt. Eden hasn't been in the press for a while and this is his chance. Every couple of years he is on the front pages with some disgusting sexist story about him.
I wish he would just go and die already.

Ah, priceless.

What is he suing for? Specific performance? That would be the first ever opinion to end with, "And the defendant shall perform the Kama Sutra in accordance with these orders."

I've gone to dinner with men twice my age, and they haven't tried to get me into bed afterwards. Generally, the older person pays, as she's a starving kid and they are wealthy. Then, when you get old, you pay for the young'uns.

So funny. Why doesn't she simply agree to reimburse him for the meal if he will have sex with a woman his own age? Simple - she'll reimburse, all he has to do is get laid with someone his own age. Methinks he wouldn't take that settlement offer.

I hope the woman countersues for litigation harassment.

F him! The woman didn't want to have sex with you! Get over it! Seriously!

Mina, you're not an an anti-Aspie bigot because you'd "rather lose [your] virginity in a loving relationship than with some guy who can't even be my friend let alone my lover". You're an anti-Aspie bigot for believing that Asperger's makes it impossible for a person to be a real friend. It is challenging for Aspies to build friendships not because we don't truly care about and love other people but because we communicate in different ways from neurotypicals and neurotypicals, smug and secure in your notion that we are diseased and challenged, refuse to meet us half way.

Was George's comment indicative of some degree of male privilege? It's hard for me to judge since I can't access the link (thanks to China' Great Firewall) for context, but statements such as his often are. However, I really wish that feminists could refrain from making these sort of gross, inaccurate generalizations about those of us on the autistic spectrum. Please educate yourself and stop making autistic women feel as out of place in feminist space as we often do in Aspie space.

"You're an anti-Aspie bigot for believing that Asperger's makes it impossible for a person to be a real friend."

I don't believe Asperger's makes everyone with it impossible for a person to be a real friend. Remember, "some guy" doesn't mean "everyone with [insert name of condition]." ;)

I do believe I don't want to just get fucked by someone who doesn't have a very close and loving romantic relationship with me...no matter why he doesn't.

'There are a few years between us. And there are some women who are too old for me, but in that case you have to be diplomatic and say, "you're not my type".'

I have no words.

"I actually went and looked that one up, because I'd read about it in so many different places, and Snopes says it's an urban legend:

"http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp"

I was wondering about the hypothetical possibility, not the 2004 rumor of a case already happening which Snopes debunked.

"Mina, not true - check the last pages of this German government report (in English, pdf) on the legal changes and the social situation of prostitutes in Germany (since 2001). Note - legal changes were implemented by a social democrat/green party coalition goverment, the report was edited by a Christian democrat / social democrat coalition government (a bit more to the right)."

Thanks for the link! :)

"It's even more telling of his sleaziness and hypocrisy that near the end of the article he says, 'And there are some women who are too old for me.' Wow, would those women have to be like, 100?"

Yeah, assuming that his date shouldn't have an age standard when he has one himself is hypocritical.

At the same time, if he doesn't want sex with women his own age that's actually OK. After all, he doesn't owe anyone sex either.

Likewise, I don't want a boyfriend who doesn't keep up his end of a relationship with me, I have a hard time catching up to other young adults in the social skills department myself, and I just recognize that my odds of romance suck instead of assuming the world owes me some super-smooth hottie.

"Mina, you're not an an anti-Aspie bigot because you'd "rather lose [your] virginity in a loving relationship than with some guy who can't even be my friend let alone my lover". You're an anti-Aspie bigot for believing that Asperger's makes it impossible for a person to be a real friend. It is challenging for Aspies to build friendships not because we don't truly care about and love other people but because we communicate in different ways from neurotypicals and neurotypicals, smug and secure in your notion that we are diseased and challenged, refuse to meet us half way."

This.

I get pretty forgetful about the difference between a person with a disability who expresses patriarchal ideas, and a feminist who says something ablist. They both make my eyes roll, and i reach for the tums.

"Remember, "some guy" doesn't mean "everyone with [insert name of condition]." ;)"

So you weren't slurring everyone on the autism spectrum, just *most* of them. Oh, well in that case...that's awesome.

OK, I'd like to clarify something for ekswitaj, Sly Civilian, et al.

By

"Am I an anti-Aspie bigot because I'd rather lose my virginity in a loving relationship than with some guy who can't even be my friend let alone my lover?"

obviously "can't even be my friend" includes all people who can't even be my friend (no matter why they can't).

I was responding to the assumption some people (such as George) make that being autistic or Aspie or whatever is a substitute for actually treating someone in friendly and romantic ways when one wants a relationship (for example, as if someone should enjoy dating a guy who seems to give her the cold shoulder half the time).

It reminded me of the way someone out there could claim being visually impaired is a substitute for using eyesight (for example, as if you shouldn't even want the moving truck driver you hire to see street signs).

It also reminded me of the way my mother assumed not sharing a native language with me was a substitute for actually getting the words right when she wanted me to do chores (for example, as if I should have raked the leaves and done the dishes when she told me "sweep the floors").

Am I slurring all or most ESL speakers if I'd rather get clear instructions at work than have some boss who wants me to do something and can't pick the right words for that something?

Remember, "clear instructions at work" doesn't exclude all instructions from ESL-speaking managers and "some boss who wants me to do something and can't pick the right words for that something" doesn't include all ESL-speaking managers. It's the same way "a loving relationship" doesn't exclude all relationships with Aspies :) and "some guy who can't even be my friend let alone my lover" doesn't include all Aspies.

So THAT'S where I am going wrong. Nevermind getting to know her as a person or wooing her with my talk of a better America, or treating her like a person - and if she wants to jump on the sofa with me, then great. All I had to do was buy her a meal? Holy crap! Somehow, THAT part of dating was never explained to me by my parents growing up. :(

See - finding dates at the Vagina Monologues and feminist conferences and shit like that, not effective ...just look for a really hungry girl (if she's hungry, she's also thin) and offer to pay for dinner, then BAM!

Seriously, though, what a fucking asshole. But then again, it's not like this is that uncommon. Especially in the college environment and bars and whatnot, it seems like some guys think that just because a girl agrees to spend time with them or accepts a dinner invitation, that it's a sign he has the right to her body.

It also creeps me out how guys at bars would buy a girl a drink as an attempt to buy time with her, to talk to her. She's NOT a prostitute. If you really want to talk to her, go over there and introduce yourself, and don't talk like such a dumbass.

Ugh! Maybe this is why I always get into bar fights with homophobes and misogynists.

Going with the Asperger hijack for a moment: my nephew has Asperger's and is a very sweet kid. He's creative and charismatic, he's just also a little dreamy and sometimes a little insensitive. 'A little insensitive' does not mean that he is incapable of a loving relationship. He is a loving kid. Many people with Asperger's are very loving, they're just also... distracted sometimes. That's all. You're not obliged to give them a shot, but you might be rejecting some fascinating creative people if you don't.

About the girl and her legal fees: I thought about this too. If she has to retain a lawyer at all, even just to draft a response letter to the court, she'll be out more than he spent on dinner. I am now convinced that he's trying to punish her financially because he can, which makes him even more scummy than he was before.

RockStar-- Perhaps that was a poor choice of words-- he respects me more because I would not have had sex so soon. He doesn't treat women badly regardless. It is a double standard-- instead of being at his level, I'm a step above. He respects me more than he does himself in that regard-- does that make sense?

Snobographer-- If she thought that it was purely friendly, why did she let him pay for things? Well, presumably, it doesn't sound like they split the bill, and if they did this comment is useless and he's an even BIGGER asshole. If she truly, genuinely was shocked at the idea, then I can understand and she's not being a jerk about it at all.

Mina-- As to the "consenting to a date = consenting to sex" bit, no, of course not. She could have said "I don't have sex on the first date" and that would have been fine. But she said "you're too old," which implies that she went to the date thinking "Well, he's too old for me, but maybe I can get a free meal out of this even though I think he's unattractive and I will never want this to develop as a relationship." Unless, of course, as snobographer suggested, she was thinking it was a friendly thing.

piccolo: The white woman could counter-sue for damages, and as for the whole "drag the name through the mud" part, well, she would kind of be racist.

This is how we prove he is a creep, we insult his manhood? This is the kind of not so subtle gendered inferences I don't expect to see on this site.

I thought it was just pointing out that he'd be a horrible "lover," as he's clearly an insensitive, preening, thug.

David Copperfield flies a girl to his private island in the Bahamas, rapes her (allegedly), and offers her $2 million to keep quiet. This guy buys a girl dinner and thinks he's going to get lucky. Apparently he doesn't realize there's this thing called "inflation." A meal just isn't worth as much as it was in 1825 when he was a strapping middle-aged magician.

Any lawyer that would represent this guy would get serious repercussions by the court for bringing forth a clearly frivolous lawsuit without merit. Its true you can sue your neighbor because the sky is not blue enough, but it would never ever get past the beginning stages of paperwork and you certainly would never be able to retain a lawyer.

She will not have to spend $10,000 on a lawyer. That is ridiculous. This isn't a criminal suit, she can easily defend herself (if it went to court, which it will not) by standing there and smiling because the suit is clearly meritless and the judge would recognize that.

I know people think the legal profession is pretty sleazy but come on, give us some credit. No one with basic ethics would charge this woman $10,000 for this joke.

Forgive me for being pessimistic about this young woman's legal options, Lucie. When I see things like the Spector trial it makes me suspect that wealthy men can do pretty much anything they want. And remember, if she even needs a lawyer to draft a letter she'll be out money she can probably ill afford, and he'll still be a rich asshole showing her who's really boss.

Well, I don't know enough about the German legal system to say--are we sure that this will bankrupt her?

@Basnionara: WTF??? she was leading him on??? maybe i am biased cause i'm german and we don't have this whole dating culture as in the US; when you go out with a guy, its just going out, just like you would go out with a girlfriend unless you hint its not just platonic friendship.
and even IF she hinted she might be interested in him - does that mean HE is the one who decides WHEN it is time to hit the sack? awww poor playboy feeling awful and intimidated.. i wonder how SHE wouldve felt if she had sex with him without really wanting to do so.
excuse me but i am so fed up with this whole "leading a guy on"-thing. you're not leading him on except you have officially agreed to sleep with him beforehand.
the REAL issue i see here that its a (almost caricaturely) perfect example of men thinking women are not humans but public properties, there for mens' joy.
News of the day: women ARE human and therefore have the alone right to decide what is done to their bodies and whatnot, any time.
and people wonder why a rape culture exists? huh, now here you see where it grows!
i dont see anything funny in this case. he might wanna pull a wannabe-rosa-parks for publicity (which is wrong in so many ways!) but it reveals such a disgusting sexism and shows perfectly what is going wrong in our society/ies.
it so reminds me of that quote from cythia heimel's book sex tips for girls:
"One does not have to sleep with, or even touch, someone who has paid for your meal. All those obligations are hereby rendered null and void, and any man who doesn’t think so needs a quick jab in the kidney.
and mind you, that book is from 1983. one should think we have learned it by now...

EG: "are we sure that this will bankrupt her?"

I don't think this will bankrupt her. I don't know about her financial situation, but when I was 19 even $500 dollars would have caused problems for me. He doesn't have to bankrupt her in order to make her life temporarily miserable. All he has to do is exploit the fact that he has resources that she does not. I don't think his goal is to destroy her life. I think his goal is to remind her that she is nothing and he is a big rich man. Even a couple thousand dollars in unnecessary expenses and time wasted (because he has people and she does not) will get that lesson across loud and clear.

No, I get that. My question should have been phrased as "Is the German legal system the same as ours with respect to the money she'll have to shell out, or is it more humane?"

Ha! I'm so accustomed to our own 'screw the poor' system that I forget not everyone in the world has to live like that. It's an interesting question.

Every woman who has ever been rejected by this creep for being "too old" (and when I say too old, I mean his age) should sue the stuffing out of him.

Oh, and another thing. Elderly playboys are pathetic.

"Is the German legal system the same as ours with respect to the money she'll have to shell out, or is it more humane?"

As you might have expected, it's actually "more humane". :D
In Germany, the loser pays it all, court costs plus the expenses for the lawyer(s) and experts of the winning side. And the payment for the lawyers is regulated, it's a percentage of the value of the issue that the parties disagree about. Since Eden could have had sex with a premier class callgirl for, say, 1000 Euros, lawyer'sa costs can't be very high (this 'low value' of the case afaik also eleminates the chance for an appeal, btw). So, even if the girl is losing this case (which is very questionable, since there isn't a discrimination law covering such private issues), she won't end up paying for this too long.

But imho Eden knows perfectly well that he got close to no chance in court. I guess the whole point of this is just that he is hungry for some attention and press coverage. Nobody did care much for the old fart recently...
:D

Oh, and LaGloriosa is right. There isn't so much of a habit of seeing sex as a proper reward for an invitation for dinner here. Sadly...
:-(

"Well, he's too old for me, but maybe I can get a free meal out of this even though I think he's unattractive and I will never want this to develop as a relationship."

Wtf is wrong with you Americans? Can't a girl just have dinner with an interesting guy (imho Eden is an a**hole, but he sure is an interesting one) who's inviting her, without having to consider that she has to have sex with him as a 'reward'? Hey, I would love to have more sex, but simply expecting it for the invitation seems to me very much like stamping the woman as a whore. If you respect her, you have to respect her decisions, too. Period.
:-|

Pretty much everyone-- it's not leading him on because she went out with him and didn't have sex. It's leading him on because she went out with him and never, ever intended to have sex with him because of his age, or, by extension, to ever marry him. She should not have gone out with him (in a romantic context only) if she never expected it to go anywhere except dinners and conversation.

Keep in mind too that I am in no way defending the guy, as he is clearly a jerk. She shouldn't have slept with him anyway. My objection is only with her reasoning ("you're too old" not "I do not want to have sex with you"). If she had gone out with him and he had tried that and she said, "It's too soon, I don't know you well enough, I'm not sure if this will work out," then he would have had no right to complain. It was the implication, by her words, that she would have had sex with him on the first date were it not for his age, which she would have known BEFORE the date. Sex is not a reward for dating. It is usually expected, however, that a date means that you are looking for EITHER sex OR a long-term relationship possibly culminating in marriage that will involve sex at some distant, future date. So if you know already you will never ever have sex with a person even if you married, you really shouldn't date them.

If you are right and it is customary in Germany for men to go out with women, pay for the meal and drinks, and there to be no expectation of more, then the young woman is completely absolved of all blame. As that seems to be the case I retract my former statement and concur with the majority that he is a total and complete a**hole (well I already thought that, but now I retract my complaint about the woman). In America, one girl and one guy going out where the guy pays for everything and neither makes the "just friends" part expressly clear means dating, and means that you are trying to discover if this relationship could progress. I was not aware that the custom was different in Germany.

And by the way-- if a woman I was out with attempted to pay for my entire meal I would assume they thought it was a date, too, unless otherwise specified.

Apologies for the long comment, by the way.

Basiorana... ugh. You go out on a date to decide if you like someone, not necessarily to decide whether you will be having sex with them that evening.

If sex comes up (and it doesn't always), either party can refuse to have sex for whatever reason they like. Period.

Sometimes people go out to dinner with a person because they are interested in TALKING TO THEM, or think it might be fun or different. Or for any number of different reasons. It is not necessarily a meeting to negotiate future services.

Really... ugh. You live in a bleak world.

But the thing about going out on a date, especially a first date, is that it is the process whereby you decide whether or not you want to sleep with someone. You can go out with someone whom you wouldn't normally want to sleep with, because they seem interesting and maybe that'll change your mind, and by the end of the night realize, hey, you know, no matter what, septugenarians just don't do it for me.

A date is the beginning of the decision process, not the end of it.

sgyzax-- I did mention that it's about learning if you want a relationship, too, which doesn't mean sex that night. I never implied sex that night, I'm talking about sex, ever. Sex five years from the first date. My argument is that you should not let someone believe you are weighing the matter if you are not, in fact, weighing the matter.

EG-- Okay, I will give you that. Most young women know that they would not want to have a relationship with someone that much older in advance, but if she was on the fence, yeah, it works.

Basiorana,

It doesn’t matter if she was contemplating having sex with him or not, if she was on the fence or not. It wouldn’t matter if in addition to having him pay for dinner, she had gotten naked and danced for him in his bedroom. She can put her panties right back on whenever she wants and that’s her prerogative. No one ever owes anybody sex no matter what they hinted or promised beforehand. Phrases like “leading him on�, can only be uttered by misogynist assholes, so cut it out.

Sojourner-- It is possible to lead a guy on. Yes, she has the right to say no at any point. Leading a guy on is when girls flirt with guys so they can get homework answers, then reject them for dates; it's when they go out to dinner with a guy and let him pay while knowing that they never want it to go anywhere, to develop into a romantic relationship.

She did not owe him sex, I never said she owed him sex. I'm saying that she should not have agreed to the date knowing that she considered him too old to have a relationship with. If she was uncertain as to that factor but willing to give it a chance, then she owed him exactly what he got-- nothing. For all I know that was the case. But as a girl who has had lots of friends who have been screwed over by girls who used them I can't condone using someone for a free night on the town. If that was in fact what she was doing. Which I don't know.

Also, if I had sex with a man who led me to believe our relationship would continue afterwards but then he dumped me once he got "what he wanted," that would be leading me on. And I'm sure that most "misogynistic a**holes" would applaud him.

He's raping her with a lawsuit.

EG, read Temple Grandin. In her autobiography, she writes that Aspie women often have less romantic involvement than comparable men, because of the pressures against women initiating romantic overtures in our society and because the inability to read body language cues places them at an exceptionally high risk of rape, due to insufficient "gift of fear." (cf. Gavin De Becker.) Someone without effective creep-dar has one less line of defence. (The crucial element of course is the rapist, and rape culture.)

In a male-initiator sexual system, like Anglosphere compulsory heterosexuality, male Aspies are very likely REJECTING interested women through their inaction and non-reponse to signals, as well as getting their egos crushed when their "weirdness" interferes with the interaction when they charge ahead in the absence of positive signals or the presence of negative signals they can't read.

I have a few interesting things "wrong" with me that have hurt A LOT, relationship-wise, and entitlement is only one factor, although a large one among younger men--men would be better off if they didn't hate (the vast majority of) women's bodies so much and insist on an unrealisable ideal. But there's nothing in George's complaint that hints at the lack of a buxom pin-up as his main complaint.

"Sometimes people go out to dinner with a person because they are interested in TALKING TO THEM, or think it might be fun or different. Or for any number of different reasons. It is not necessarily a meeting to negotiate future services. "

Yes, there's that (although I think most dates do indicate interest, and the idea something further might come of it). I also know (rightly or wrongly) younger women who engage in a sort of romantic, non-sexual relationship with older men. THey go out on dates with the men, maybe do some kissing. The older men reap the benefit of having a younger, pretty girl on his arm to pay attention to him and be on his arm at social functions. Maybe that was the sort of relationship this girl would have been up for.

(I can't see myself going for something like that ever, but if two other people consent to it, I think it's their right)

Also, I guess obviously different people have different attitudes about what agreeing to go on dates signify (I happen to be one of those who would feel uncomfortable going on what could be construed as a date if I didn't have some sort of romantic interest). However, my cousin (who is male, American, 30 yrs old) happens to think women can go on dates with men whether or not there is romantic interst, but just to get to know people, and that men should always pay. So that provides a pretty strong countexample to Basiorana's perspective.

"If you are right and it is customary in Germany for men to go out with women, pay for the meal and drinks, and there to be no expectation of more, then the young woman is completely absolved of all blame."

Well, most of the time, women won't let you pay for everything, mostly it's sharing the bill, or you buy dinner and she cocktails later, or something like that. Of course, this is dependent on the circumstances. It isn't uncommon for a rich guy to pay the whole bill, either. I guess those big spenders see this to as a show of their status or afluence or so. As for women not believing they are expected to have sex afterwards - imho this has some positive sides, too. After all, why should a girl commit herself to go this far with a guy she hardly knows at the first date? Not having to deal with this certainly results in being more open towards dating.

Random thought: the "You're too old" does not necesssarily mean that she was leading him on or using him or whatever. She simply could have thought that it was a friendship, as she would not have thought that a man would want to screw a woman who is one-quarter his age.

Thus, "You're too old" could be startled shorthand for "WTF? You mean that you actually thought this was a date, and not friendly conversation???"

Euro, Temple Grandin's book sounds interesting, but what does it have to do with my comment? I didn't say "Aspie women, go out and find relationships! That should be easy!"

As for George in the UK...call it experience with his line of argument. Everytime feminist debates about prostitution come up, some man pops in to whine "But I'm disabled" or "But I'm shy" or "But I'm ugly" or "But I'm frightened of intimacy...how else can I get laid if I don't go to a prostitute?" The implication is that men have a right to sex with a woman, and that "right" should trump any feminist concerns about prostitution, because, oh noes! you can't expect me to just carry on without sex, and those mean women aren't attracted to poor them unless they have the money. Interestingly enough, when you ask these men whether they're doing their bit to ease such suffering by offering up their bodies to gay men or women who are disabled or shy or whatever and who might be having trouble getting laid, they never answer.

Meanwhile, speaking of attractiveness and the elderly, did anyone else here see the latest Questionable Content webcomic?

http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1000

:)

EG,

You should add in that men aren't all that eager to date socially undesirable women of all sorts of stripes: super-smart, conventionally unattractive, divorced, etc. How are they to find emotional intimacy and caring if men do not sacrifice themselves?

Very true--where's our brothel?!

"As for George in the UK...call it experience with his line of argument. Everytime feminist debates about prostitution come up, some man pops in to whine 'But I'm disabled' or 'But I'm shy' or "But I'm ugly" or 'But I'm frightened of intimacy...how else can I get laid if I don't go to a prostitute?'"

It's not just a prosititution thing either. I've also seen the "how else can he get laid if he doesn't fuck someone nearly passed-out drunk at a party?" version:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/msg/e2e1ede71d3a0189?hl=en&

Also, remember the version that went

"...Girls should choose to have sex with whoever they wish.

"But clearly, they don't make these choices fairly or evenly - and this creates a severely unequal situation of halves and have nots among males, which can often only be rectified via violence against the chosen males, the girls, parents, society..."

? It was posted at http://feministing.com/archives/006305.html#comment-61062

Oh dear God, Mina--I'd managed to forget about that ass! Maybe we should set him up with Herr Eden.

"If she thought that it was purely friendly, why did she let him pay for things? Well, presumably, it doesn't sound like they split the bill."

Well, I have older friends take me to dinner all the time, and they pay. I mean actual friends, not people who expect me to sleep with them. They pay because they know I'm 23 and broke, and they're in their 50's and 60's and have been working for a long time and have established themselves. It's just something nice that t hey do for me, like when I get older, if I have young friends like that, I'll take them out too. Hell, when I get my finances in order, I'll take out friends my same age or older too. It's not leading someone on by allowing him to pay, it just looked like he was doing a nice thing for someone younger. At least that's how I see it.

"She may have assumed that was the case. It may have been unfathomable to her young perhaps naive self that a 77 year old would have any interest in having a sexual relationship with someone her age. Or maybe she thought she might be interested (*shudder*) but was skeezed out when the date got underway."

...or maybe she doesn't think consenting to a date = consenting to sex? Lots of people go on first dates without wanting sex on first dates, after all...

Posted by: Mina

Yeah that's pretty much what I said. But thanks for the kneejerk calumniatory.

EG,

I'm a broke student, but I wouldn't mind paying for a night of cuddling, back rubs, and flowers. Not gonna happen, though, because we're not allowed to bitch about not getting those things out of the male population - apparently, we aren't entitled to that ("that" being whatever a woman happens to want romantically, be it cuddling or multiple orgasms).

Ah, tja, EG. Suggesting that male Aspies seek mates among female Aspies might simply be compounding the problem, when what is needed is an especially empathetic and intuitive partner. Grandin DOES make the first brief (AFAIK) in mainstream discourse against sexual abuse of autistic women as a subset of special victims, so noteworthy for that. SVU workers and counselors apparently hadn't considered how to work with autistic victims in a lot of the standard manuals/textbooks. In the other thread, m_m is just complaining about a dynamic that the psychologist Steven Pinker has found evidence for: dominance is the decisive characteristic in mate choice in some really violent, disfavored communities, like the modern American urban high school. Sure, it's not the only factor, and not later in life, but MRAs are willing to discuss the effects of stereotypical masculinity on heterosexual attraction. Figleaf over at www.realadultsex.com (NSFW, if half-naked men are NSFW) calls it the "worthiness" red herring, and discusses its origin in detail--it's a form of shame about affection needs and sexuality.

To be perfectly blunt, I don't think entitlement is quite the bête noire of male sexuality. Of rape culture, yes. Of misogyny, partially. It's totally counter-intuitive for young straight men to feel no anger at women when all they are reaping is rejection, in a system that requires them to be the initiators, and they're not emotionally equipped to take the long view. (Whereas you have to be devoid of empathy as well as intuition to rape.) I think as a culture we are not equipped to think of a natural hunger as something that can go interminably unsatisfied. Hence the rhetoric of entitlement.

The LA Weekly had an article last year or the year before about Heidi Fleiss's efforts to set up a legal brothel catering to straight women in Nevada. She is nothing if not tenacious. Unfortunately, demand for prostituted women from straight men is not going to become equally marginal anytime soon.

Okay...

Does this guy realise that what he's actually asking for is the right to rape any woman he takes a liking to?

Because that is what this comes down to.

If a woman is afraid of being sued and all the life-upturning issues that go with that, how is she able to give meaningful consent?

Sex under coercion of any form is rape, pure and simple. The stench of entitlement must waft of this man like nobody's business.

Mina, EG,

Also, remember the version that went

"...Girls should choose to have sex with whoever they wish.

"But clearly, they don't make these choices fairly or evenly - and this creates a severely unequal situation of halves and have nots among males, which can often only be rectified via violence against the chosen males, the girls, parents, society..."

The term "rectified" is completely absurd and morally wrong. No one has a right to another person's body. Period.

Yet, slightly off topic, and yet related - for your consideration, my argument why I think that feminism should not in all cases entirely dismiss the root causes of this line of thinking -

- if the occurrence of sexual contacts should indeed be approaching a pareto style distribution if human mate choice is entirely free of social intervention (which, of course, would equally affect both sexes and we'd have to wonder why there would seem to be such a preference mismatch for the "market to not clear" - there is a statistically rising population of involunatry singles), or in cases of severe demographic gender discrepancies or other positive checks on sexuality (middle east, Asia), the problem becomes less individual and more collective - how to defend and enforce this fundamental individual right (mostly women's rights) socially and politically against a significant amount of excess testosterone, a hormonal political force that may in turn affect social standards of acceptable behavior in a way not favorable to women.

Sure, abstract justice is not political, but whether abstract standards of justice, or even fundamental rights as we define them today can be successfully applied politically depends on a number of variables - one of which, I believe, is the amount of collective "excess testosterone".

See here, for example, foreign policy issue March 06 - the geopolitics of sexual frustration.

ts, fascinating article! Thanks for posting!

It's totally counter-intuitive for young straight men to feel no anger at women when all they are reaping is rejection, in a system that requires them to be the initiators, and they're not emotionally equipped to take the long view.

Well, yes, when sex in middle school is deemed "normal," it must be a double slight to men to not be able to "get anywhere" with women.

There are plenty of men who think that, when a woman dates them and won't have sex (for religious/moral reasons), it is a reflection upon his manhood. There are also plenty of men AND women who are made to feel like crap if they aren't dating anyone by age 14, having sex by 17, and having steady relationships through college before they get married at age 26.

It's totally counter-intuitive for young straight men to feel no anger at women when all they are reaping is rejection

I don't care whether or not they feel anger. I care whether or not they express such anger, or feel that such anger is justified, or feel that such anger justifies being an ass. They're not getting laid? Well cry me a fucking river. I didn't lose my virginity for a long time either. It was frustrating. But you know, I dealt with it. Given how important male sexual approval is to teenage girls' status, I find it hard to believe that boys just have it tougher.

EG,

Are we having the anti-pity party? Yeah some deal better than others. I noticed no one touched my claim that our culture has no way of dealing with an insatiable "natural" desire, because of our idolatry of Nature--since the desire can't be wrong, it is the failure of others to cooperate that is civilised corruption. Hence evo-psych nutbars. We are also a culture of competitive victims status.

To judge by the parlous state of our popular culture, they do express that anger, feel that it is justified, ARE in their minds the sole aggrieved parties. (Witness the Duke Lacrosse follow-up email scandal: avoid rape accusations by pre-emptively killing the strippers.)

Yes, they do, and that's a serious problem. But that's exactly what male privilege is, or any privilege, in a way; thinking that your emotions justify treating other people badly. I just don't believe that men's sexual urges are so overpowering that they can't be expected to behave like decent human beings.

I don't agree that we're in a culture of "competitive victims status," and I don't agree that sexual desire is "insatiable." "We" as human beings are perfectly capable of dealing with an unsatisfied natural desire--look at the hordes of women who do so all the time.

EG, Eurosabra,

why do these discussions always - always - have to end with an argument about "who's got it worse"?

I don't think this one is. My position is that sexual frustration is part of the human condition; it's neither uncommon nor unbearable, and it doesn't justify behaving like an asshole.

Oh cry me a fucking river, Basiorana.

This guy does not deserve any kind of pity. What the hell is wrong with you that you see some pitiable creature in this disgusting rapist-wanna-be? What is your rush to blame the woman and possibly find even a modicum of sympathy for this pig? Your friends sound like Nice Guys. Being helpful to someone only because you want access to their body is despicable, but you seem to not recognize this bit.

Also, that little backtracking regarding your boyfriend is sick. Really. So he has you up on a pedestal because you've passed some kind of purity-innocence-anti-whoremeter? No matter how you try to cover up the bullshit with eau de backtrack, it's pretty vile shit.

and jesus, you must live in a world where men + women = sex or something. What about assuming that unless there's explicit consent among both parties, a night out means plans for a good time that doesn't involve sexual contact? If you don't want to risk give someone a "free night on the town" at your expense, don't f'in pay. It's not like the woman held a gun to the jerk-off's head and forced him to pay.

Okay, back to the topic...

I don't care how sexually frustrated you are. Doesn't give you the right to be an ass. Nobody- male or female- owes access to their body to anyone. Not even their kids. sure, you can be pissed that you're not getting laid, but it still doesn't change the fact that if you are pissed at anyone for not giving you sex, you're being an ass.

At the end of the day, human society is never going to be purely equal. some will struggle more than others for various reasons. We need to get to a point where we have legal protections against discrimination and have social nets to help people as much as possible. However, unless technology changes, you will never be be in the front line as a firefighter actively putting out fire if you're quadriplegic, for example, even if that's your dream of dreams.

Sex is an important facet of people's lives, no doubt. Anyone has the right to be dissatisfied or angry about any particular situation, but they have no right to act on their anger and use that to justify taking people's conset away.

"However, unless technology changes, you will never be be in the front line as a firefighter actively putting out fire if you're quadriplegic, for example, even if that's your dream of dreams."

I am now imagining a firefighter equivalent of RoboCop. That could be pretty cool. Imagine if in the movie someone brings up that old "women shouldn't fight fires because they have less upper body strength" thing and then later RoboFirewoman carries both that someone and an even bigger adult out of a burning building at once... :)

A robocop firefighter would be pretty kewl.

I did read a short science fiction piece featuring a full-conversion-cyborg female firefighter.

I'm with Rolf. If she never intended to sleep with him because he was too old, but deceived him into thinking that was not the case for personal gain then that's fraud. He is well within his rights to take her to court.

I don't think you can dress this up as if he thinks he's bought right to sleep with her. He doesn't have that right, but he does have the right not to be caused a loss through deception.

There you go Ann, that'll get this thread another 100 comments.

That's interesting. I don't recall reading anything about the woman entering into some sort of contract saying that if he bought her dinner then it would guarantee him some sort of return.

If a man (or woman) asks me out and offers to pay, I would agree to let them pay because they're the one who asked to go to dinner or whatever it may be. This in no way implies that I owe them anything or that my intention is to 'take advantage' of them. Futhermore, as many, many, many other people have pointed out, we do not know all the details of what context of this was or how the woman interpreted the invitation (romantically or platonically).

And even if she went out with him with the intention of getting a free night out and had no attraction to him, it would not constitute fraud. It would be more like he made a risky financial investment and it didn't work out. That is entirely on him. So what now? Should people be getting sued every time dinner doesn't end with sex because of "fraud"?