Edmonton woman pays thousands for a date and ends up with toothless homeless man

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by pylon

Yes, that was the point. Because having a girlfriend is some sort of incredible accomplishment. Like only a select 99.5% of the male population has pulled of this incredible feat. Whew! Glad I'm not in that 0.5%!

No, but having a 35 year old GF at your age is.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Its great that old lady's can be hot and all, but I need heirs to my dynasty and I have better percentage chance of creating that with a fertile 20 yr old than a 35+ yr old.

That is why age is not equal conversion between genders. Biologically, men typically remain fertile into later stages in life, and there are evolutionary reasons for that. A middle-aged woman is often competing against differing biological desires at that age.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't think people were suggesting that this was how it should be, just that it is the case. Women over 30, with kids, have a harder time in the dating scene as things go on. You can argue these factors shouldn't make a noticeable difference to one's dating prospects, that it's not fair or reasonable, but speaking generally, they do. That's just the reality. Height for guys operates much the same way. Should being 5'7" be a major impediment for a guy to get a date? Nope. But apparently it is, as recorded by a number of people earlier in the thread.

You can substitute earning potential as a discriminatory factor that younger men deal with. They get judged on it all the time as if it is a valid indication of character. How many women in this thread can honestly say that they never overlooked a guy trying to make eye contact with them because that guy worked at McDonald's or bagged groceries, but then dated equally attractive jerks with a decent income? Should it be that way and is it fair? I don't think so, but it is a reality that guys need to deal with, especially when they are young and just establishing themselves.

[PepsiFree]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't know if the ideal response to Peanut's post pointing out the pretty blatant slights against women in this thread was "Yes, but that's just how it is!" Generally speaking, explaining the state of things (which is quite obvious to all, and the crux of the problem) can come off as a little condescending.

Pylon at least recognised he phrased something in a bad way and owned up to it. That's pretty much the way to handle things. It's not actually important to point out the obvious or find excuses for a negative attitude towards women (or men, or anyone for that matter).

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

If they're obvious descriptive statements, then they're not really "blatant slights against women". Pointing out reality is not pejorative. As for "making excuses for negative attitudes towards women", pointing out why some people might not be looking for a partner with children isn't making excuses. People are allowed to have preferences in terms of what they're looking for without it somehow reflecting negatively on them. No excuses are really necessary.

[ToewsFan]

"A fool and her money are soon parted."

[soulchoice]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't think people were suggesting that this was how it should be, just that it is the case. Women over 30, with kids, have a harder time in the dating scene as things go on. You can argue these factors shouldn't make a noticeable difference to one's dating prospects, that it's not fair or reasonable, but speaking generally, they do. That's just the reality. Height for guys operates much the same way. Should being 5'7" be a major impediment for a guy to get a date? Nope. But apparently it is, as recorded by a number of people earlier in the thread.

Although, in the case of kids, I don't think you can say it's somehow a reflection of poor character if a single guy with no kids isn't interested in dating a woman with kids. That's a matter of what you're looking for in life at the time. And if you're a single mom, well, guys who aren't at that point in their life where they want to start a relationship not only with a significant other but also a child are probably guys you don't want to be dating anyway. I personally don't see it as a deal breaker, but I can understand why it is for many.

Some people seem to get all butt hurt over what others seek or dont seek in a partner. For example, i dont date women who are the same age or older than myself(generally date 5-10 years younger), hence 25-35 max for age. As well, I wont date a women who has a child.

ive met women and some didnt want to date me for whatever reasons. Be it physical/ethnic or any reason at all. Its no big deal to me. You move on and find someone that does. Go for what you want, as I do too. Life is too short to worry and also there are too many people in this world to worry about not meeting another persons requirments.

Its not my business what others want or seek in a potential partner. Just live your life.

Whether or not this woman had lofty expectations is not for anyone to decide. She paid for a service, but any service like this has its risks. Nothing is guaranteed when it comes to matchmaking. Perhaps the agency couldnt find a man who fit her description that wanted to go out with her? They still should continue to help her though as it is a chunk of change.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If they're obvious descriptive statements, then they're not really "blatant slights against women". Pointing out reality is not pejorative. As for "making excuses for negative attitudes towards women", pointing out why some people might not be looking for a partner with children isn't making excuses. People are allowed to have preferences in terms of what they're looking for without it somehow reflecting negatively on them. No excuses are really necessary.

Thank you so much for pointing out reality. You are the hero women all people need!
:P

The issue wasn't personal sexual preferences though, everyone is aware that those differ person to person. The issue was broadstroke qualitative statements, like "women who are X need to readjust their expectations" or "women who are X are less viable." Nothing wrong with saying "I have the following preferences," but to turn it into some definitive statement on women as a whole is probably not great. Look at the post above, "I date 25-35 max"... no issue at all, because he didn't try to lay out some "truth" about 35+ year old women.


Do whatever though. I didn't see Peanut's post and think "Hey, this is begging for someone come in here and point out reality" but w/e. I just thought it was condescending.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I'm sure it's not true for you EE. You're an ideal individual in virtually every way.

Aww-shucks.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Thank you so much for pointing out reality. You are the hero women all people need!
:P

The issue wasn't personal sexual preferences though, everyone is aware that those differ person to person. The issue was broadstroke qualitative statements, like "women who are X need to readjust their expectations" or "women who are X are less viable." Nothing wrong with saying "I have the following preferences," but to turn it into some definitive statement on women as a whole is probably not great. Look at the post above, "I date 25-35 max"... no issue at all, because he didn't try to lay out some "truth" about 35+ year old women.


Do whatever though. I didn't see Peanut's post and think "Hey, this is begging for someone come in here and point out reality" but w/e. I just thought it was condescending.

Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound condescending. I just meant that finding a match meeting the fraud victim's standards would be very difficult (if not impossible). And I am not saying that she doesn't have the right to have those standards, but any male client they set her up with is going to have his own standards as well, and it is unlikely she would meet them. It's not just what she wants, but they need to consider what the other side wants. Multiply those together and the database probably came up empty. Obviously the company lied to her and should have refunded her money than make a lame attempt to lock her in to a contract.

Then Peanut's post sounded like a condemnation for men having the standards that they do, so some of us justified why those standards exist. If you make a condemnation on an opinion, it's reasonable to give a response.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Lol, totally. So many slight (and not so slight) slams on the inherent value of women in this thread. Middle aged and overweight? You're lucky to be dating a homeless man, lady. And don't you dare get uppity about his appearance - you don't deserve to have standards, YOURE MIDDLE AGED AND OVERWEIGHT.
Classic.

there are exceptions, but most of what I'm reading in this thread isn't that she's not allowed to have standards. It's that maybe guys have standards as well and she's going to get filtered out for quite a few people, based on some reasons noted. And they find that a bit ironic.

It doesn't have to be a big massive 'inherent value of women' discussion. Just that she isn't going to be an attractive partner to some/many.

I could be wrong but I sense a double standard where, dammit she's allowed to have standards and doesn't deserve some toothless bum, but the minute people see her in a similar, non attractive light that's somehow awful and an affront to the inherent value of women.

Don't get me wrong, there is some language here like those who have and have not pushed out rug rats that isn't appropriate, my point I guess is that it seems to me from your post guys can't have the very standards she's entitled to.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound condescending. I just meant that finding a match meeting the fraud victim's standards would be very difficult (if not impossible). And I am not saying that she doesn't have the right to have those standards, but any male client they set her up with is going to have his own standards as well, and it is unlikely she would meet them. It's not just what she wants, but they need to consider what the other side wants. Multiply those together and the database probably came up empty. Obviously the company lied to her and should have refunded her money than make a lame attempt to lock her in to a contract.

Then Peanut's post sounded like a condemnation for men having the standards that they do, so some of us justified why those standards exist. If you make a condemnation on an opinion, it's reasonable to give a response.

Tall-ish, attractive, gainfully employed, presumably with a home address and good dental hygiene.

I'm still just not seeing how on earth this list can be considered very difficult to achieve. Literally nothing on her list of requests is outlandish. This is something that we keep harping on, how she's being unrealistic--these are barebones standards here, kids. She wasn't asking for a date with a male model who also happens to have a Nobel prize and also rescues puppies in his spare time when he's not feeding the homeless at a soup kitchen. She was asking for a date with a middle aged, reasonably attractive man with a job and a home address and all of his teeth.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Tall-ish, attractive, gainfully employed, presumably with a home address and good dental hygiene.

I'm still just not seeing how on earth this list can be considered very difficult to achieve. Literally nothing on her list of requests is outlandish. This is something that we keep harping on, how she's being unrealistic--these are barebones standards here, kids. She wasn't asking for a date with a male model who also happens to have a Nobel prize and also rescues puppies in his spare time when he's not feeding the homeless at a soup kitchen. She was asking for a date with a middle aged, reasonably attractive man with a job and a home address and all of his teeth.

Because the guy they set her up with is going to have his list as well, and you can bet at least one or more of his criteria standards won't match with her. I am willing to bet most men will have more than one of the following; attractive, slim, athletic, young, petite, pretty, sexy, etc... Any guy who doesn't, probably really would be a toothless, homeless man.

It's not that her standards are so crazy, it's that there are 2-sides to the coin. And for the reasons mentioned, after around the age of 35, there is a power-flip in the dating scene that favours males.

[calgarybornnraised]

N/m

[Amethyst]

If what she requested was not possible to provide, the company should not have taken her on as a client. To take her money, knowing they couldn't provide the product is fraud.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

If what she requested was not possible to provide, the company should not have taken her on as a client. To take her money, knowing they couldn't provide the product is fraud.

Definitely.

I also have to admit that I didn't realize that there is a difference between "dating sites" and "matchmaking" services (the latter being more expensive, but more of a hand-selection made by "professionals" than a computer match from an algorithm), so from that perspective, I agree that this person was a victim of fraud. There should be at least a partial refund for these services if they fail to deliver and a full refund if they honestly didn't even try. I don't see how they can promise anything more than an equal however, and nothing beyond that should be guaranteed IMO.

It's also worth mentioning that CBC cleaned up the story a little since it was first posted to not be quite as disparaging against the "toothless gentleman".

[DiracSpike]

I don't usually feel bad for scammees because they're mostly equal parts greedy and stupid but I definitely feel for this lady. She must have been crushingly lonely and out of hope to bypass the plethora of basically free dating services for an almost 7k bill on what was supposed to be a professional match making service.

It's pretty clear that the company was disingenuous in finding a match with the basic criteria she asked for, but I think it's also true that if the gender roles were reversed at best the media would think it's a non story and at worst the guy would get internet mob justice shamed into the stratosphere.

[Mister Yamoto]

She was the victim of a scam and that is unfortunate.

Who pays $7000 for date? Or even the promised 12 dates. There are Saudi princes that pay less for dates.

And who the hell does she think she is to start making light of her low self esteem issues? If "toothless gentleman" had self esteem issues she took a big crap on them. I'd love it if this guy sues her and the CBC, wins a nice settlement, uses the money to buy dentures, upgrade his RV and meets the woman of his dreams.

And who writes this crap? An RV by the road? Who doesn't live by a road?

What have we learned? Women in their 50's with a victim complex aren't much of a catch. Go figure.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

She was the victim of a scam and that is unfortunate.

Who pays $7000 for date? Or even the promised 12 dates. There are Saudi princes that pay less for dates.

And who the hell does she think she is to start making light of her low self esteem issues? If "toothless gentleman" had self esteem issues she took a big crap on them. I'd love it if this guy sues her and the CBC, wins a nice settlement, uses the money to buy dentures, upgrade his RV and meets the woman of his dreams.

And who writes this crap? An RV by the road? Who doesn't live by a road?

What have we learned? Women in their 50's with a victim complex aren't much of a catch. Go figure.

What could be sue for ? Unless she said something that isn't true that caused some sort of real damages against him.

[OMG!WTF!]

I've got the opposite problem. I'm fully toothed and a reasonable catch on paper. But then the personality comes shining through and it's see ya later weirdo.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

What could be sue for ? Unless she said something that isn't true that caused some sort of real damages against him.

She did.

Unless I am mistaken a 'Trailer' technically qualifies as a 'Home.'