Men can’t buy women’s consent by paying for dinner. Dating is not vasooli

Pranit More's fan revealed an ugly truth about dating when he said he wanted to recover Rs 360-370 he had spent on a biryani for a woman.

L to R: Pranit More and the audience member who recounted a first date and complained that he had not recovered the cost of the biryani he bought a woman because she did not have sex with him | X

Comedian and Bigg Boss 19 contestant Pranit More’s controversial show has brought a familiar debate to light: who pays on a date, and are they owed anything in exchange for it? During crowd work, a man in the audience told More about a ‘date’ where he wanted to ‘vasool‘ (recover) Rs 360-370 he had spent on a biryani for a woman.

More laughed it off, calling it ‘peak Gurgaon content’, which is highly problematic. The man in the audience wasn’t making some joke about biryani, or the amount he spent on it. The issue is about a man believing that spending money on a woman creates an obligation she must fulfill.

Amid all the discourse around modern dating, progressive values and gender equality, a surprising number of men approach dating as a transaction. They “invest” time, money, effort, and attention and expect returns on that investment. If they don’t get what they want from women, they feel they have the right to resent them. 

The language is flexible, but the sentiment is the same. “I paid for dinner” (You owe me) “I drove all the way” (You owe me) “I bought her gifts” (She owes me). “I spent so much on her”. What she “owes” is always some sort of sexual favour. 

If not sex, men expect women to do the emotional labour, shower them with uninterrupted attention, or commitment. No matter what she wants, the entitled man expects to get what he thinks he paid for. 

Dating as a transaction 

Why even let the man pay for dates? It is a custom much older than stand-up comedy and dating apps. For most of human history, relationships were not built around romance. They were economic arrangements. Marriage was a transaction between families. Women often had limited access to education, employment, property ownership and just overall financial independence. Men controlled resources and women depended on them for survival. The result? As you’d expect, a deeply unequal power dynamic.

Even as societies modernise, traces of the rule survive. Even when courtship became more about romance, the rituals retained the original logic. Men are still expected to pursue and pay for dates. The modern man is expected to prove that he can provide. Whether one agrees with that expectation or not, it remains a social reality. Add to that the new-age way of things, when a man’s pro-activeness determines how serious he is about a woman. 

It is also a double-edged sword for women. We are expected to be desirable, agreeable and basically worth investing in. This is why dating remains such a strong contradiction. Of course, women also pay for dates, or at least split the bill, but the social expectation is still on the man to pick up the tab. 

A common rule that a lot of people go by these days is that whoever asks the other out on a date has to pay for it. Which again puts the ball in men’s court—few women ask men out. Most women expect men to take the first step. Some men offer to pay as a common courtesy—chivalry and such—and some see it as a price they must pay to get whatever they need from women. 

According to a study published in 2011 titled ‘You Owe Me’, men are more likely than women to expect to have sex after an expensive date. The study also revealed that women felt even less obligated when the date was inexpensive and the bill was split. So while women did not believe that a man paying for an expensive dinner entitled him to sex, many still felt the pressure to fulfill male expectations. 

Pranit More’s fan, who shamelessly complained about not getting his money’s worth, spoke about a date as though he were describing a bad purchase rather than an interaction with another human being. His remarks reflect a worldview that many women encounter all too often. The absurd implication that a plate of biryani has created a debt that can only be paid with a woman’s body. The comedian and the audience members who laughed at this so-called “joke” failed to see the stupidity of it. 

The thing is, consent is not bought with a Rs 360 plate of biryani, bouquet, or a display of basic decency. A woman doesn’t owe a man sex because he paid for dinner. Consent is given freely without obligation because otherwise it is just coercion. 

Perhaps that is why more and more women are reaching for their wallets on dates—to split the bill or pay for the whole thing. It’s one thing that they can afford it, and they are also exhausted by the invisible expectations tied to male generosity. 

Views are personal

(Edited by Ratan Priya)