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.