The fundamental basis for currency mediated trade is that money stands in for goods and services such that if I provide a good or service I may be repayed with instead of a good or service a commonly held currency. The reverse relation is also true I may pay for the provision to myself or others a good or service with a commonly held currency.

It can then be established that in reference to the latter case wherein one receives a currency for their work that this currency holds the value of the actions of their body. It is essentially their bodies goods and services as provided to others distilled into a currency that represents those actions.

If one expects men to pay for the first date completely this is equivalent to the unilateral expectation that a man provide a good or service with his body as currency is merely a standin for such actions. If he had not at an earlier time provides goods or services through some actions of his body he would not have that currency with which to purchase a good or service at the time of the date.

We can then conclude that if expecting women to have sex on the first date is objectification of said women then so to is expecting men to pay for the first date such that both expecting men to pay on the first date and believing the expectation that women have sex on the first is date is objectification may be categorized into the following true statements.

(A-o)+(B-O)=n

Were n represents no contradiction in expectation or beliefs.

Were A represents the women's belief that men should pay for the first date.

Were -o represents a women's belief about her dates expectation B werein it is not viewed as objectification.

Were B represents a man's expectation that women have sex on the first date.

Were -O represents a man's view his dates expectation A werein it is not viewed as objectification.

(-A+o)+(-B+O)=n

Were -X represents the opposite view about a view or in the case of a first order view such that first order views are not opinions about opinions the lack of a view.

(A-o)+(-B-O)=g

Were g indicates generalization as the hypothetical women in question believes her date has an expectation he does not sourced in some stereotype.

(-A-o)+(-B-O)=n (A+o)+(-B+O)=c Were c is a contradiction between first and second order views A,+o. (-A+o)+(B+O)=c (A+o)+(B+O)=d

Were d is these people both having femcell/incel esque views.

AS FOR HOW MANY MEN AND WOMEN HOLD SUCH A CONTRADICTORY POSITION THERE IS NOT RELEVANT STATISTICAL DATA THEREFORE ANY ANNECDOTES FOR OR AGAINST THE QUANTITY OF EITHER DEMOGRAPHIC HOLDING SUCH A POSITION WILL BE DISREGARDED AS HOLDING NO ARGUEMENTAL MERIT.

Lastly all counters to my argument must operate under identical parameters if you do not wish to be immediately disregarded as strawmanning.