The user, a 22-year-old woman, went on a date with a 22-year-old man. They discussed general topics like hobbies and goals over dinner, and the man offered to pay for the meal, for which the user was thankful.
The date continued in a park where the conversation shifted to relationships. The user noticed the man speaking negatively about women, echoing rhetoric similar to Andrew Tate’s viewpoints. When the topic of ‘body count’ arose, the man expressed that women should have low numbers of sexual partners, stating that those with many partners are only for “recreational use.”
AITA for calling a date a “Recreational use wallet” when he told me that women with large number of sexual partners are for “Recreational use only”?
As relationship therapist Esther Perel has noted, “Intimacy requires vulnerability, and vulnerability requires safety.” This situation sharply illustrates a breakdown of safety and trust within a nascent connection due to extreme ideological incompatibility presented disrespectfully.
The man’s insistence on judging a woman’s worth based on a low ‘body count’ and using derogatory terminology like ‘recreational use’ indicates rigid, controlling beliefs rooted in sexism. His immediate shift to hostility (calling her a ‘bitch’) after being challenged shows an inability to handle emotional reciprocity or criticism. The user’s anger was a direct, defensive response to verbal disrespect and the imposition of damaging gender stereotypes. While her parting shot about the ‘recreational use wallet’ was emotionally charged and retaliatory, it was a direct reflection of the devaluation she experienced.
The user’s action of leaving immediately was an appropriate boundary enforcement against clearly unacceptable views. However, engaging in name-calling often escalates conflict unnecessarily. A more constructive future approach, once the offensive comment is made, would be to clearly state, “I am not comfortable with how you are speaking about women, and I am ending the date now,” without engaging in reciprocal insults, thus maintaining the high ground while still enforcing the boundary.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.
The user felt very angry after hearing the man’s judgmental comments about women’s sexual history and responded by sarcastically thanking him for the dinner, implying he only wanted to use her for a meal before leaving abruptly.
The man later sent a message calling the user a derogatory name for using him. The central question is whether the user was justified in responding harshly to his offensive comments, or if her reaction was an overstep given that he had initially paid for the date.
