Was called a mean bitch the other day just because I have high standards.

[Art_Critic]

My role in life is to support myself and family members if needed. If a woman wants me to financially support her then she'll receive a Chris Paterson styled kick out of my life with immediate effect.

 

If you were married would your wife be your family ?

[LittleTiger]

Hate to ruin a fantasy, but James Bond isn't spending his own money...he's got a nice expense account courtesy of the MI6. It's easy to be generous when you're spending someone else's dough

 

Not to mention, Bond treats his girls as disposable and uses them to accomplish his mission objectives while putting their lives at risk. When they don't suffer some form of tragic death in the process, they are usually discarded at the end of the mission. I guess that's what happens when you fall for a bad boy

 

Of course James Bond is a fantasy! Don't take what I said so literally or expand it to include all his other chauvinistic behaviours. He's a generalised caricature created by Ian Fleming to titillate and amuse both men and women. I was talking only about how he treats women 'on a date'.

 

I hate to burst your bubble here but there actually are real, non-fantasy men who know how to make a woman feel like a woman on a date - whether he has money or not (and whoever the money belongs to!) - and, contrary to what you'd like to believe, they are not all bad boys - a great many of them are gentlemen.

 

My fiance happens to be a gentleman who treats me like a lady. He insists on paying if we go out for a meal - and he is far from wealthy!

 

The 'man in control' gesture (which is what this is about) doesn't even have to cost a lot - in fact the best dates often cost nothing - but women are mentally wired to be attracted to men who take charge - our brains are just built that way and, despite the feminist movement, it's going to take several thousand years for evolution to change that (if it ever does before we become extinct).

 

If a man offers to treat me to something (even something as inexpensive as an ice cream or a coffee) my hormones react very positively to him - it turns me on - I can't help it.

 

I think the problem here is that many young men (or maybe just less confident men) can't handle the fact that it's the confident, in control, take charge qualities in a man that makes a woman feel most like a woman - and making a woman feel like a woman is how you hook a woman - especially a feminine one!

[In A Rut]

If you were married would your wife be your family ?

 

I have no intention of marrying anybody or having children. If I was married and had children then that's different, but I would expect my wife to work as well. Double the income is better for all parties.

[Art_Critic]

I have no intention of marrying anybody or having children. If I was married and had children then that's different, but I would expect my wife to work as well. Double the income is better for all parties.

 

I would think then you should have prefaced your post with that info.

Most people date with the intention of marrying or being in a truly committed relationship and that person becoming a part of the family.

[Dusk1983]

Emotions do not equal beliefs, and preferences do not equal either. When it comes to beliefs and preferences, however, I like to have some sort of rational basis for them. If you don't think your beliefs and preferences should be based on some degree of rationality, that's your prerogative, but don't expect anyone to take your beliefs or preferences seriously if that's the case.

 

 

Excellent post, but the counterargument would be - why do men have a preference for nubility, large breasts & specific waist-to-hip ratios? These are all preferences without a direct rational basis, because they seem to operate at the subconscious level (from an evolutionary standpoint, as indicators of optimum fertility.)

 

Many men always insist on paying because it has been so ingrained in them to do so.

 

But what, exactly, is deeply ingrained? A generalised male feeling of unworthiness of a woman's genitals. It's that simple. And the easiest compensator to mitigate this perceived inequality is material goods.

 

But what is so ugly about this transaction is that both parties know that it confirms the man's status as the inferior, and the woman's status as the superior. This, in the most prosaic day-to-day sense, is why women like it when a man pays.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Dusk1983

[LittleTiger]

But what, exactly, is deeply ingrained?

 

What is deeply ingrained (biologically speaking) is that the man is the provider and the woman is the nuturer. It has nothing to do with power and everything to do with the roles we were biologically designed for.

 

What everyone seems to forget is that first and foremost we are all animals. Yes we have intelligent brains and free will but evolution doesn't happen as fast as some people seem to think.

 

Men evolved as the hunters and providers, women evolved as the communicators and carers. No matter what changes have occurred in society since our caveman days, our brain chemistry hasn't altered. Science has shown that this is a fact. In the same way that mens' and womens' bodies are different, so are their brains. Why do you think there is so much miscommunication between the genders?

 

For those who haven't done so already, read 'Men are From Mars, Women are from Venus' - it's a little old fashioned but you'll recognise most of what he talks about. There are more modern versions of the same thing in 'Why men don't listen and women can't read maps' and 'Why men lie and women cry'.

 

The fact is, men and women are different (of course there are individual differences too) and we're attracted to different things in the opposite sex. Men essentially want 'healthy' looking women (slim, fit, pretty, large breasts, small waist etc) and women essentially want 'confident' men who know how to handle themselves and, if necessary, will be able to provide for them and their offspring.

 

Both genders are trading one thing against the other. You can pretend all you like that this isn't how it is, but we all know the truth if only we'd admit it to ourselves. Every single time you go on a date you're thinking 'what's in it for me'? More often than not, the man's major concern is whether he can get sex from the woman and the woman's major concern is whether the man will treat her well.

 

Everything else is just social etiquette making us believe we can all rise above our hormones in the dating game. Give it up folks, we can't!

[phineas]

Your logic once again reeks of fail *pats*... it's not even close to an equivalent of your attempt at a simile.

 

Besides, it's really far-stretched that someone would know within the first few dates if their date met all of their other requirements

 

If someone doesn't pass someone's desired "screening" process, it simply is what it is.

 

But, we really are only talking about one requirement aren't we?

How fat his wallet is.

 

The type of women looking for a man with money, can figure out if the man their out with meets that requirement on the first date.

 

Hell, they knew the guy had cash before they accepted the offer for a date.

 

So your logic fails also because gold diggers are pro's at sniffing out men with money.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

TheBigQuestion

Either way, there really isn't anything that separates a "total stranger" from a "girl I know a little bit." The bottom line is that I don't know much about the person in either situation, and I happen to think that getting to know the girl and building attraction without the constraints of traditional dating is mutually beneficial.

 

It's beneficial to *you* because it fits in line with your personal dating style. But there is no one way to date and other people perfer different styles.

 

I think catagorizing the women you go out on dates with as "total strangers" entiredly misrepersents the situation. Total strangers are people you pass on the street or the person sitting next to you in a sporting event.Total strangers aren't girls you are interested in getting know better. Putting them in the spot of "total stranger" is just a way to make their association with you seem much further away then it really is.

 

Regardless, when you started you're thread there WERE women that said they like to pay their own way. Find one of those girls! Don't lamenate against women like me because we perfer a different style of dating. If you meet a girl who likes for you to pay, then that means she isn't for you. It's rather simple.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove here. Yes, I do have emotions. Emotions do not equal beliefs, and preferences do not equal either. When it comes to beliefs and preferences, however, I like to have some sort of rational basis for them. If you don't think your beliefs and preferences should be based on some degree of rationality, that's your prerogative, but don't expect anyone to take your beliefs or preferences seriously if that's the case.

 

You're thoughts on this aren't based on logical fact. It's based on your own opinion, your own experiences and the feelings you have attached to those. Just like everyone else. You attempted to shame other people, mainly women, for emotions while alot of your belief in this subject are made because of your own feelings. Dating isn't a scientific study. Feelings are invovled. Are core values and beliefs about dating are tied to our feelings.

 

Further, I gave you a biological and rational reason why a woman might perfer a man that pays. Being that it's deeply rooted in biological make-up.

 

 

Yes, I am dating someone. I've never discussed my beliefs about who pays for dates with my girlfriend because it is a non-issue in our relationship.

 

Excellent! You found a woman that agrees with you. That's all you really need. She fit into what you wanted.

 

 

And I can't speak for everyone else, but the cost of dating is not and has not been an issue for me. It's the expectation and the undeserved sense of entitlement inherent in this issue that encourages me to talk about it. That and the fact that I've found ways to circumvent the issue even with women are used to being "taken care of."

 

"Circumvent"..meaning to force an issues that you believe should be a certain way so they come to behave the way you want them to behave instead of considering their own beliefs and thoughts. Because after all...what *you* want is more important. It's one thing to find women that are like minded in their beliefs as you. It's another to "circumvent" the isse with women that are use to different kind of man then you.

 

 

I never denied that it was a biological imperative. I'm willing to share my resources with someone who demonstrates a commitment to me. Just because I fail to see the need to spend money on a woman who I barely know does not mean I'm contradicting some biological imperative.

 

Well it does, because courting is just that courting. You show your mate what you have to offer. Both men and women do this. But women today don't really think they deserve much respect so sometimes they settle for certain ways men treat them.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

What? It was you who offered to bring him dinner. He didnt expect it. Even if you didnt bring him dinner, he wouldnt mind. Thats totally different than you expecting a man to pay for you on dates otherwise you wont want to see them again. One is a bonus, while the other is a requirement.

 

And it was him that offered to take me out to dinner. I didn't expect it! Of coures he wouldn't mind if I brought him dinner. I would be doing something NICE for him. The only difference in this comparison is that you have no qualms about a woman doing something nice for a man but godforbid a man do something nice for a woman because if he does apparently he is a chump in the eyes of some of the guys here.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Like I said, playing with semantics. You can call it "holding against" or "not being a good match" or "misalignment of astral energies" or whatever you want really, but the fact remains that there are still materialistic women out there who expect the man to open up his wallet simply for the "privilege" of taking them out on a date.

 

Yeah I'm sorry but fitting better with certain people over others is what dating is about. And trying to claim that that's akin to an irrational belief in mystic "astral energies" is irrational on your part.

 

Why don't you actually try arguing what I actually said instead of talking about airplanes and arabs in an attempt to bring a totally different racism issue into the context of a dating and relationships thread.

 

If a man wants to be a swinger AND have a relationships with me, I guess I should just agree to go along with it so that he doesn't think I'm holding it against him? What would you recommand I do?

 

The subject is styles of dating. Some people fit and some don't. Just because someone determines that they don't mesh well with someone after all isn't "holding it against them". People are different.

 

This sort of selective "traditionalism" is what makes men cynical and reluctant when it comes to dating (ever wonder why most younger men prefer to 'hang out' instead of going on traditional dates?) We live in 2011, not 1911. If you want to be treated as an equal, be prepared to act like one

 

There is no such thing as "selective traditionalism". Being an equal person in the work place has nothing to do with romance and relationships dynamics between men and women. If you really want everything to be equal equal, then I won't ever cook a man a meal in the name of "equality". But who would want that? What fun would that be? No fun. I LIKE doing girly things for my man. And I want a man that wants to do manly things for me.

 

By the way, younger men prefer to "hang out" in 2011 because they aren't forced to mature in current society like they were in 1911 when people had to grow up faster to survive and lifespans where shorter.

 

And are you interested in what makes women cynical? The number of men that act semi-interested in you and give you mixed signals just enough so you think they like you just so they can sleep with you.

[carhill]

What do you mean "fail?". I've had men cook me dinner and I would always offer to make the desert and bring a bottle of wine myself.

The dating experiences were a fail. Not attractive (male) behavior in that time, generation and social dynamic.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Oh..well I'm sorry Carhill. I'd like it if a man did that if I cooked him dinner. But If he didn't, I wouldn't be insulted either.

[carhill]

Oh..well I'm sorry Carhill. I'd like it if a man did that if I cooked him dinner. But If he didn't, I wouldn't be insulted either.

At that point I had yet to discover the difference between what women *liked* and what they were *attracted to*. They appeared to like such actions but their attraction didn't progress. A contributing factor was, for the times anyway, a lack of appropriate sexual aggression from myself, since I was looking for a LTR and was more 'traditional' in that regard. I think many found the dynamic confusing and the confused mind generally says 'no'. In that time period, generally late 70's to early 90's, women in my locale still clearly expected a man to court them and pay for that process and 'traditional' marriages were still common, perhaps aligning with the OP's 'standards'. Sharing dating costs hadn't caught on yet, at least for average guys like myself.

[xxoo]

Like I said, playing with semantics. You can call it "holding against" or "not being a good match" or "misalignment of astral energies" or whatever you want really, but the fact remains that there are still materialistic women out there who expect the man to open up his wallet simply for the "privilege" of taking them out on a date.

 

This sort of selective "traditionalism" is what makes men cynical and reluctant when it comes to dating (ever wonder why most younger men prefer to 'hang out' instead of going on traditional dates?) We live in 2011, not 1911. If you want to be treated as an equal, be prepared to act like one.

 

I will fight all day long for women to have rights and opportunities equal to men. That is political.

 

At the same time, I enjoy a traditional relationship with my spouse. I enjoy "serving" him, and he enjoys "providing" for me. It is mutually satisfying. Just because I have the right to equality doesn't mean I have to choose it. That is personal, not political.

 

Here's the good news for you, Feelsgood: Thanks to the feminist movement, many women agree with you and want the same things you do! Different strokes for different folks. It is only a problem when people try to force a relationship to work with someone basically incompatible. If a guy is strongly averse to paying for my meal, he is not the guy for me. Great guy for someone else, but not me. If a girl is strongly averse to going dutch 100%, she is not for you. But great for someone else. Compatibility.

[blueskyday]

Wow! What an eye opener. I've rarely had a problem with this; most of the guys I've ever dated seemed to want to pay all the time. Of course, I offered every few times, insisting sometimes no matter what they said.

 

My relationships have seemed very unbalanced if you only looked from a monetary point of view, but relationships have many factors that balance out the whole. For instance, I cook. I would make dinners for the men I dated.

 

They were much wealthier and could afford the dinners much better than I could. These men wanted to take care of me. I took care of them, too, by cooking for them, listening and helping them with social problems at work, helping them shop for family gifts, and taking care of them in any way I could.

 

Everything has a value. What's important is that both people feel the other wants to care and provide for them, in whatever way they can and with the resources they have.

 

I actually stopped going out with a guy who asked me to take him out and BUY him dinner. I had cooked dinner for him twice in that week, and we hadn't been out to eat during that time. He knew I was pretty strapped, and he made a lot of money. It just seemed very entitled and insensivite of him.

 

So it's never really about money. It's about being generous with what you have, and being sensitive to what the other doesn't have. Some of the best guys I've ever dated didn't have a lot of money, but they were generous!

Edited October 4, 2011 by blueskyday

[TheBigQuestion]

It's beneficial to *you* because it fits in line with your personal dating style. But there is no one way to date and other people perfer different styles.

 

I think catagorizing the women you go out on dates with as "total strangers" entiredly misrepersents the situation. Total strangers are people you pass on the street or the person sitting next to you in a sporting event.Total strangers aren't girls you are interested in getting know better. Putting them in the spot of "total stranger" is just a way to make their association with you seem much further away then it really is.

 

Regardless, when you started you're thread there WERE women that said they like to pay their own way. Find one of those girls! Don't lamenate against women like me because we perfer a different style of dating. If you meet a girl who likes for you to pay, then that means she isn't for you. It's rather simple.

 

 

 

You're thoughts on this aren't based on logical fact. It's based on your own opinion, your own experiences and the feelings you have attached to those. Just like everyone else. You attempted to shame other people, mainly women, for emotions while alot of your belief in this subject are made because of your own feelings. Dating isn't a scientific study. Feelings are invovled. Are core values and beliefs about dating are tied to our feelings.

 

Further, I gave you a biological and rational reason why a woman might perfer a man that pays. Being that it's deeply rooted in biological make-up.

 

 

 

 

Excellent! You found a woman that agrees with you. That's all you really need. She fit into what you wanted.

 

 

 

 

"Circumvent"..meaning to force an issues that you believe should be a certain way so they come to behave the way you want them to behave instead of considering their own beliefs and thoughts. Because after all...what *you* want is more important. It's one thing to find women that are like minded in their beliefs as you. It's another to "circumvent" the isse with women that are use to different kind of man then you.

 

 

 

 

Well it does, because courting is just that courting. You show your mate what you have to offer. Both men and women do this. But women today don't really think they deserve much respect so sometimes they settle for certain ways men treat them.

 

Explain to me what the functional difference is between a total stranger on the street and someone I've spoken to for about an hour tops. How much do I REALLY know about what either person expects out of a relationship, their core values, their sexual habits, and the myriad other qualities that are important in a relationship? The answer is, not much, if anything at all. You haven't provided an argument otherwise.

 

I never denied that there are "feelings" behind how I think. The difference is that I am still subjecting those feelings to a test of rationality. Your "feelings" on the matter don't hold water because what you advocate is essentially a double standard. You justify a woman's condemnation of a man for not feeling like it's proper to pay for her dinners early on, yet you refuse to condemn women in the opposite scenario. You then argue that "men and women are different." Women on this board will argue until they are blue in the face against the promiscuity double-standard, and here you sit advocating essentially the same thing.

 

If you remember that thread, I stated that I never consciously embarked on any mission to not spend money. It simply ended up happening that way with my girlfriend. However, you're correct in that I advocate others to consciously act in the way I did, because it's a more equal way of going about things. If my girlfriend had really strong feelings about needing to be paid for, I'm sure it wouldn't have worked out. It doesn't change the fact that her (and most women) got used to being paid for just by virtue of being women. Yes, I advocate that old-fashioned courtship can and should be circumvented, because what I did worked, and worked repeatedly. Breaking out the cash is not a necessary condition for a woman to become very attracted to you, even if she is consciously or subconsciously trained to believe it.

 

I think a lot of the women on LS will take issue with your suggestion that by not feeling happy to accept being paid for by men early on, they're somehow demeaning themselves or don't think they respect themselves.

[LittleTiger]

I will fight all day long for women to have rights and opportunities equal to men. That is political.

 

At the same time, I enjoy a traditional relationship with my spouse. I enjoy "serving" him, and he enjoys "providing" for me. It is mutually satisfying. Just because I have the right to equality doesn't mean I have to choose it. That is personal, not political.

 

Here's the good news for you, Feelsgood: Thanks to the feminist movement, many women agree with you and want the same things you do! Different strokes for different folks. It is only a problem when people try to force a relationship to work with someone basically incompatible. If a guy is strongly averse to paying for my meal, he is not the guy for me. Great guy for someone else, but not me. If a girl is strongly averse to going dutch 100%, she is not for you. But great for someone else. Compatibility.

 

Well said xxoo!

 

I'd just like to add that even when two people choose traditional roles it doesn't make them 'unequal'. In a traditional household, the man 'goes out' to work and brings home 'the bacon', while the woman stays at home and, unless the man is exceptionally wealthy, she usually works just as hard as he does, albeit in a very different way. If it's affordable and both parties are happy with the arrangement it's a perfectly 'equal' partnership.

[FrustratedStandards]

why don't you get a job and support yourself?

 

I do have one and I do support myself.

 

And how are you successful exactly?! Where does this money come from? Daddy or do you actually have a well paying job?

 

lol i like your sense of humour

 

I make over 10g a month.

 

This is all about how much money the man makes. If a guy makes plenty of money there is no need for the wife to work.

 

Pierre you are the only one who gets it.

 

Which begs the question--what kind of lifestyle is the OP looking for a man to support?

 

The lifestyle which I lead.

 

I want him to be able to take me to fancy restaurants and go on vacation with me, but also not mind getting wet in the rain when we stroll in the park, or just goes for walks in the summer because it's nice out.

 

The fact that you are a woman does not in and of itself entitle you to any special treatment.

 

LOLOLOL

 

oh my gawsh, you just made my day

 

I have to give you credit for taking advantage of the liberation of the woman movement.

 

I don't think the op is a gold digger. She is simply tired of cheap men.

 

If you read the entire thread you will find that a lot of women prefer men that are not cheap.

 

Once again Pierre, thank you.

 

Didnt you say you plan to just become a housewife?

 

If 10 years after the marriage suddenly your husband loses his job or gets disabled, who is going to feed the both of you? After 10 years out of work, you wouldnt magically be able to get back into a high paying career to support the both of you.

 

Chances are when that happens, you are just going to leave your husband and look for another man to leech off of.

 

I already answered this question in an earlier post. If you go back to the previous pages you will see it.

 

Didnt you also say that you arent attracted to Russian men? So obviously not only you are financially picky, but you are also physically picky. You want the best of both worlds. This is just getting amusing. Good luck with your hunt finding that man of fantasy. An attractive and successful man who is willing to devotes himself to a woman who just wants to stay home and do nothing. Funny. Honestly if I were you I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for such a man otherwise I would just die alone.

 

The problem is finding a man with both. Most men are unattractive, even if they are successful. OR if they are attractive, they aren't successful. I need a balance with both.

 

Unfortunately thats impossible to find it seems.

 

It is not about the money.

 

Some women simply prefer men that act like a gentleman and that includes paying the check in a restaurant and not asking his date for money.

 

This same women do not mind paying their way once they are in a long term relationship with the same guy.

 

Will you marry me? hahaha

 

Is it important to you whether the man is physically and sexually attractive to you or is his financial success enough?

 

Both are very important.

 

Not like it is has gotten me anywhere....

 

Seeing how some men take letting them pay as a measure of interest.

 

Or don't feel manly unless they pay.

 

I really, really feel I'm just being consistent in my 'feminist' values... and that we all need to pitch in... work together to bail water out of this 'boat of life' we're all trying to sail through.

 

I understand this, but why does it bother you if a man picks up the cheque? Why does your "feminism" feel threatened? Wouldn't you enjoy being treated by a man who cares enough to WANT to do these nice things for you?

 

If a guy came home and blurted out in a nasty way 'what's for dinner?" I'd tell him 'Pizza Hut. Here's the phone."

 

Seriously? He spent a day working, and when he comes home to his girlfriend/wife, you don't have the decency to make him a meal?

 

It's women like YOU who give me a bad name. WTF is wrong with asking whats for the dinner? The poor guy was working all day and would appreciate a meal cooked by his girl. Not some f*ckin pizza. That's rude if you ask me.

[FrustratedStandards]

You will never find a rich guy. rich guys don't like ugly fat chicks. You will be forever alone.

 

Oh babbbbbyyyyyyyyy! You are so cute.

 

coming from a man with money, to be honest, it's easier if you're honest and that's what you want.

 

that's why men with money wind up with what other people call "gold diggers". it's easier. women who value their independence more than their relationships are not relationship material. they don't know what they want. women who want a man with money are pretty cut and dried in their wants and needs, and from the man's standpoint, you can reduce it to simple dollars and cents. i have x amount and you can spend y amount. simple.

 

keep at it, you'll find one.

 

Wow! There IS life on this planet! Thank you ThatOne. I mean, i'm not a golddigger, but I get what you're saying. Wow. A man will balls who isn't threatened by a woman just cuz she wants a man with success!!

 

Gentleman, you can learn a thing or two from this man.

 

Ummm really? You voluntarily move to this country and then complain about the way people live. Sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for you.

 

It wasn't voluntary. This is explained in a previous post.

[Dusk1983]

Explain to me what the functional difference is between a total stranger on the street and someone I've spoken to for about an hour tops. How much do I REALLY know about what either person expects out of a relationship, their core values, their sexual habits, and the myriad other qualities that are important in a relationship? The answer is, not much, if anything at all. You haven't provided an argument otherwise.

 

I never denied that there are "feelings" behind how I think. The difference is that I am still subjecting those feelings to a test of rationality. Your "feelings" on the matter don't hold water because what you advocate is essentially a double standard. You justify a woman's condemnation of a man for not feeling like it's proper to pay for her dinners early on, yet you refuse to condemn women in the opposite scenario. You then argue that "men and women are different." Women on this board will argue until they are blue in the face against the promiscuity double-standard, and here you sit advocating essentially the same thing.

 

If you remember that thread, I stated that I never consciously embarked on any mission to not spend money. It simply ended up happening that way with my girlfriend. However, you're correct in that I advocate others to consciously act in the way I did, because it's a more equal way of going about things. If my girlfriend had really strong feelings about needing to be paid for, I'm sure it wouldn't have worked out. It doesn't change the fact that her (and most women) got used to being paid for just by virtue of being women. Yes, I advocate that old-fashioned courtship can and should be circumvented, because what I did worked, and worked repeatedly. Breaking out the cash is not a necessary condition for a woman to become very attracted to you, even if she is consciously or subconsciously trained to believe it.

 

I think a lot of the women on LS will take issue with your suggestion that by not feeling happy to accept being paid for by men early on, they're somehow demeaning themselves or don't think they respect themselves.

 

Again, outstanding post. It's a rare online satisfaction to have my own views expressed so eloquently by someone else that I feel no need to comment further!

[FrustratedStandards]

If more women want this they should learn how to inspire this in men without making them feel like it is demanded. It's like owning a business. You don't sit there and demand people buy from you and insult them if they don't. You offer people something of quality for their buck. If you want a man to spend on you do the same thing.

 

Who says we weren't offering anything?

 

Although I very much agree that its much easier to spend dollars into a woman's heart than trying to come up with something creative and thoughtful that requires effort and time, but somehow I cant brush off this feeling in the back of my mind that by spending money on her, Im buying the time that she spends with me.

 

In a sense you are. These days, you can't even go CAMPING without paying to use the parameters. Or the facilities.

 

It's ridiculous. This world is so based on money, and unfortunately, you need money to be happy (to an extent). I love animals, LOVE THEM, and get so much joy out of going to the zoo. But the zoo isn't free.

 

Again, this is why it's important that a man can afford to do these things. Because some of the best things in life are not free.

 

Are you serious?

 

Yes.

 

What everyone seems to forget is that first and foremost we are all animals. Yes we have intelligent brains and free will but evolution doesn't happen as fast as some people seem to think.

 

Men evolved as the hunters and providers, women evolved as the communicators and carers. No matter what changes have occurred in society since our caveman days, our brain chemistry hasn't altered. Science has shown that this is a fact. In the same way that mens' and womens' bodies are different, so are their brains. Why do you think there is so much miscommunication between the genders?

 

For those who haven't done so already, read 'Men are From Mars, Women are from Venus' - it's a little old fashioned but you'll recognise most of what he talks about. There are more modern versions of the same thing in 'Why men don't listen and women can't read maps' and 'Why men lie and women cry'.

 

Everything else is just social etiquette making us believe we can all rise above our hormones in the dating game. Give it up folks, we can't!

 

I agree with this actually. Thank you for this post.

 

But, we really are only talking about one requirement aren't we?

How fat his wallet is.

 

Two requirements actually. He needs to be attractive

 

Geez man. All I look for (initially) are these TWO qualities and I can't even find them!

 

Men have a much longer list. Yet they still complain about ONE quality we want.

 

And NO! A man may be rich, but he might have inherited it from a dying relative. If he is too stupid to know how to invest it, save it and spend it wisely, then I wouldn't want him.

 

I would rather the less wealthy man with a BRAIN who knows how to handle his man, and knows how handle and be successful.

[2sunny]

Was called a mean bitch the other day just because I have high standards.

 

look at your approach.

 

you can simply have very high standards and not need to ever worry about being called a "mean bitch"

 

the two concepts can be totally separate... a strong woman doesn't necessarily need to be a bitch - her strength is often in what "she doesn't say". or when said - the way she says things and her chosen words.

 

never settle...

[In A Rut]

If you want your wallet stolen you can always rely on an Eastern European to steal it.

[FrustratedStandards]

You see?

 

Double standard.

 

A man is allowed to want a beautiful woman, and thats okay.

 

But the moment a woman wants a successful man, she's a golddigger.

 

That's so off-putting. This is the reason Russians are considered golddiggers, cuz the men of this country don't get it. Russian men never complain.

 

That's why Russian women always dress up and try to look nice, and Russian men work hard and try to make money. They get it.

 

Yes yes, why don't you find a Russian man then? I'm working on it. I just don't understand why women are threatened and feel "taken control over" if a an pays, and men are threatened if a woman wants a successful man who has money.

[Els]

Ha, this seems like a foolproof approach to get a 20-page thread going.

 

Seriously, OP, you're free to like what you like. I wouldn't call you a bitch, any more than I would call a man who says he wants a model gf a douchebag. But I would not say you have 'high standards'.