As if single men and women don't already fear one another enough, today's New York Post drums up more terror in its portrait today of New York City's "dinner whores."
Here's how Urbandictionary defines "dinner whore": "A girl who is exclusively after a free meal or an expensive gift. She actively seeks out dates with well-off men who will wine and dine her at upscale restaurants. She is usually physically attractive enough to make the man fall for her feminine wiles. She will rarely have sex with these men, until they spend a certain number of dollars on her. Nobody knows exactly what that number is, so the man keeps spending and spending, while the dinner whore keeps living it up."
To be sure, some of these food diggers are thoroughly unapologetic. Like Brooke Parkhurst of Belle in the Big Apple, who is quoted extensively in the article and who -- though she is now happily dating a chef -- boasts that her dinner-whoring has scored her over $30K worth of gourmet food and expensive cocktails.
Still, when Parkhurst says, "Women used to feel like something had to be given in exchange, whereas now I'm perfectly confident that my company is enough," I think she's got a point. Same here: "Men are always saying, 'It's just sex. It's just a one-night stand.' Well, this is just dinner," she says.
Using someone solely for his -- or her -- money: ick. But to some degree, this "dinner whore" thing is a tempest in a 'tini. A night out that doesn't necessarily lead to sex? Call me crazy, but I call that dating.