Many women say it's bad for men to expect sex on a first date, a point often grounded in the understanding of sex as an intimate act requiring trust, safety and connection. However, this stance becomes contradictory when compared with the equally common expectation that men should pay for the first date. If expecting a significant physical or emotional investment like sex is deemed unfair from a near-stranger, it confuses me as to why expecting a financial investment is considered acceptable or even obligatory. This difference shows an imbalance in initial dating expectations. One question for women therefore is: If it's acceptable to expect a man who barely knows you to spend money on you, what specific, tangible things beyond the absolute bare minimum is acceptable for men to expect of women on a first date?

The term "bare minimum" is frequently used most often by women, but its meaning often seems diluted. To clarify: the true bare minimum in dating is simply being a good person and presenting oneself respectfully to the person you are trying to date. This encompasses basic decency, hygiene, and mutual respect. Qualities like being attractive to your date or possessing baseline human decency fall squarely within this minimal threshold. A man that doesn't know you spending money on you is doing far more than the bare minimum. Consequently, my question is: What legitimate expectations can men realistically hold for women that go meaningfully *beyond* this foundational level of being a decent and presentable person? Furthermore, the intense selectivity often displayed, exemplified by trends like the "ick" phenomenon where mundane actions like a man bending over in a "weird way" or speaking in a certain way instantly makes women lose attraction to a man suggests women can be extremely picky. If women defend this level of pickiness as their right, then consistency demands they also accept that men have an equal right to be extremely picky in their own preferences, without facing disproportionate criticism.

Given the above, men are arguably justified in significantly raising their own standards. Yet, this frequently meets resistance from women. A man expressing a preference regarding a woman's sexual history, for instance, is often criticized or shamed by women, while a woman's preference for a man's income level or physique is typically accepted without question by women. The common retort, "just don't date those women," is rarely applied to everyone too; when women critique certain types of men, they are seldom met with the equivalent advice to "just don't date those men." This hypocrisy shows a double standard in how preferences and standards are socially policed. Therefore, my question here is: If you are a woman who believes no woman should lower her standards and that women should be allowed high expectations of men, what specific, substantive expectations and standards demonstrably exceeding the bare minimum of decency and presentability should men, believing in equality, be socially permitted to have of women?

Another point of confusion for me stems from the assertion some women make: "If he doesn't approach me, then he doesn't actually want to be with me." This logic is fundamentally flawed. Applying it universally creates an inconsistency: if a man's failure to approach signifies a lack of genuine desire, what does that imply about the vast majority of women who also do not approach men? Does their lack of initiative equally signify a lack of authentic interest? The statement places the entire burden of initiating romantic interest on men while exempting women from the same standard. My next question here is: Have you applied this "no approach equals no real desire" logic rigorously to yourself or other women, and if not, why does the rule only apply to men?

Women accuse men of failing to see them as full human beings with complex inner lives. Yet, this critique is rarely turned inward. Consider women who openly advocate for or justify hating men as a group. It's crucial to distinguish between fear/caution, understandable given safety concerns, and hatred. However, fear is frequently conflated with or used to justify outright hatred. Historically and logically, hating an entire group for immutable characteristics is absolutely linked to dehumanizing that group. Therefore, women who promote hatred of men are, intentionally or not, advocating for the dehumanization of men to at least some degree.

This justification for hatred often relies on troubling statistical generalizations. For instance, some argue it's acceptable to hate men because the majority of rapists are men, while simultaneously dismissing men's concerns about false rape allegations because only a small fraction of allegations are false. There's an inconsistency here though. While it's true that the vast majority of rape allegations are not false, it is equally true that the vast majority of men are not rapists. The counter-argument, "Yes, but the majority of people who commit rape are men, even if most men aren't rapists," attempts to justify the generalization. However, applying this logic consistently reveals a flaw: the majority of people who make false rape allegations are women, even though false allegations themselves are statistically uncommon, so is it ok for every man to be inherently distrusting of all women whenever they come forward with a rape accusation specifically because 80-99% of all false rape allegations against men are made by women. Using the actions of a minority within a group to justify hatred or fear towards the entire group is the essence of prejudice and dehumanization, regardless of which group is targeted. It reduces individuals to the worst actions committed by others who share a single immutable characteristic.

This leads me to my next questions: If it's acceptable for women hurt by men to say they hate men, is it equally acceptable for men hurt by women to say they hate women? And if every man has experienced hurt from at least one woman, does that logic permit every man to say "I hate women"? To go even further with this, whenever men respond negatively to women saying how much they hate men it's often met with backlash, statements such as "if it doesn't apply let it fly", and "have some empathy" are often thrown at men in these cases. With this being the case is it within a man's right to get on the internet talk about how much he hates women and any woman who gets offended by such claims is therefore in the wrong for criticizing the man who vocalizes his hatred of women? Is it ok for men to say any women who gives a negative response to his hatred of women must just not have empathy for men? When you flip the genders, you see how ridiculous all of this shit sounds. Ultimately, endorsing hatred based on unchangeable group traits, especially when justified by statistically minority behaviors within that group, sets a dangerous and dehumanizing precedent, regardless of the target.

The critique of media depictions is another area where the accusation of dehumanization lacks reciprocity. Women point to overly idealized or sexualized female characters as evidence men don't see women as fully human. However, applying the same lens to genres women dominate, like romance or dark romance, reveals similarly idealized, unrealistic, or objectified portrayals of men. While I argue that writing idealized fictional characters doesn't equate to not seeing real women/men as human beings, consistency demands that if a woman believes men writing certain female characters proves men's dehumanizing view, then women writing certain male characters must equally prove women's dehumanizing view. Critiques like "Women Don't Act/Talk/Look Like That" could be just as easily leveled by men at female authors. Beyond these specific examples, the final question is this: Outside of hatred and media portrayals, in what other ways do you believe women fail to view men as complex, full human beings?