Whooooa the plot thickens!

Here's my proposal: the sandal is manlier if and ONLY IF it has a sock in it. Socks and sandals are typical for middle aged men after all, while fish are not. They're MANLY MEN so they only eat red meat and maybe some yummy, hormone-laden chicken. So that's absolutely crucial information for the future of masculinity. Is the sandal depicted with a sock or not?

I've seen a lot of guys online say "If you pay for her dinner, she should let you fuck her or at least give you a BJ." Like excuse me sir, do you really think someone's body and intimacy is worth the $10 McDonalds meal you paid for? First of all, having sex is dependant on one thing, and that is consent. Not paying for dinner, not coercion, just informed and enthusiastic consent. Second of all, a person who thinks of relationships so transactionally would not make a good partner anyway, so yeah, avoid them at all costs.
That's why I always prefer to split the bill. I already hate feeling like I owe money to someone, and the thought that they'll try to exploit that or hound me about it? Ugh.
Edit: That said, going back to this post specifically, it goes both ways. She could've paid to uber to him as well if she wanted to spend time with him.

Yeah. I know people who can eat McDonalds and lay on the couch all day and still won't gain weight. Meanwhile I gain a kilo by looking at a burger for too long lol.

Hmm, for instance climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers do that a lot in my experience.
"I know it's politically incorrect but vaccines actually don't work and they exist to put microchips in your body" no honey that's just factually incorrect. I guess my phrasing implied they do it willingly and knowingly, which is only partly true, fossil fuel lobbyists probably know it damn well but your average eco-unfriendly warrior might not.