Mme. Chaucer Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Todd E., you've come to the right place! Your peeps are here! Or at least your main peep. The one frothing at the mouth waving the placard and crying. Birds of a feather! You two should be very happy forever, for all eternity. Gotta go now. My husband is taking me out to dinner at the Chinese restaurant, and HE'S PAYING! Mwahahahaha! Link to post Share on other sites
maybealone Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 And, hey! When are you men going to assume your just portion of the pain of childbearing? We're doing our part. I will gladly have all the babies so long as killing the wooly mammoth for food for the family is not my job. Oh, wait... Link to post Share on other sites
maybealone Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Does this equality men are clamoring for extend to who asks who out? I, for one, am looking forward to the day where women can ask men out or even *gasp* call a day or two after a first date without being labeled as needy or desperate. Right now if I did either of those things, my reputation in the dating pool would be ruined. Link to post Share on other sites
dasein Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Why not stop using insulting language to dismiss the posts of a person with a different opinion from yours? It makes taking you seriously impossible. That men are supposed to pay for women because that's how animals do it is simply an inane notion. I'm sure you know that, and would prefer not to be raped or treated in the other bestial ways that animals treat other animals. Keep preaching Jungle Book, though, it's the funniest thing in the thread to date other than my "On the Waterfront" reference and the two "fine lovely upstanding" women in the video teeheeheehing that men should pay for dates just because that's what women want them to do. Link to post Share on other sites
mesmerized Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 That men are supposed to pay for women because that's how animals do it is simply an inane notion. I'm sure you know that, and would prefer not to be raped or treated in the other bestial ways that animals treat other animals. Keep preaching Jungle Book, though, it's the funniest thing in the thread to date other than my "On the Waterfront" reference and the two "fine lovely upstanding" women in the video teeheeheehing that men should pay for dates just because that's what women want them to do. Interesting. Men here often refer to humans being animals when trying to justify their attraction to beautiful young women. Why is it any different for women?? I know that primates trade meat or other things for sex. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't care if men stopped paying. But it's interesting how men can justify their desires but women can't. Link to post Share on other sites
musemaj11 Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Interesting. Men here often refer to humans being animals when trying to justify their attraction to beautiful young women. Why is it any different for women?? I know that primates trade meat or other things for sex. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't care if men stopped paying. But it's interesting how men can justify their desires but women can't. And when in other threads men justify their desire to have sex with many women by pointing nature, women also won't accept that either. So basically each gender want to use nature to back up what they want but won't extend the same method to the other gender. Does this equality men are clamoring for extend to who asks who out? I, for one, am looking forward to the day where women can ask men out or even *gasp* call a day or two after a first date without being labeled as needy or desperate. Right now if I did either of those things, my reputation in the dating pool would be ruined. Women arent desperate for asking a man out or initiating a contact after a date. Its only in your mind because you read Cosmos too much. You're right. There's also nothing stopping a man from saying, "I'd like to go out with you on Saturday night. How about I take you to dinner and you take me to the movies?" rather than making her pass or fail some secret financial test. Thats totally a sure way to get rejected. Most women dont like to hear a man expecting them to pay for anything which is ironic. I know this from firsthand experience. And there is nothing wrong with the woman offering without having to be asked by the man. That dance can keep going round and round. As I said, from an ideal perspective I would assume all adults should believe in paying for and taking care of themselves. I personally though think that instead when a couple are romantically interested in each other, they should have the desire to take care of each other. Meaning for example if the guy had insisted to pay for the dinner out of the desire to take care of the woman, the woman should in turn insist on getting the tickets to the movies also out of the desire to take care of the man. This way its clear that there is mutual desire to care for each other. Thats why I always keep close watch on the woman Im dating in terms of her financial approach toward me. I will wait at the latest by the second date. If by then I still dont see any desire from the woman to show generosity toward me as I have shown toward her, then I immediately lose long term interest. If she is hot though, I will keep seeing her for sexual purpose, but my heart will be closed off for her. Link to post Share on other sites
mesmerized Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 And when in other threads men justify their desire to have sex with many women by pointing nature, women also won't accept that either. So basically each gender want to use nature to back up what they want but won't extend the same method to the other gender. I don't like the nature excuse either way though I do think it has some truth to it. Also, if we go by nature, women are supposed to be promiscuous too, it's not just a male thing. Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 What would he be burning? Boxer shorts? Most likely dollar bills. Though that wouldn't be a terribly efficient way of saving his American countrymen from the deep hole the 'thousands of dollars' that they have 'all spent on early dates' might have burnt into their pockets... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
maybealone Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Women arent desperate for asking a man out or initiating a contact after a date. Its only in your mind because you read Cosmos too much. No, I read LS too much. There's also nothing stopping a man from saying, "I'd like to go out with you on Saturday night. How about I take you to dinner and you take me to the movies?" rather than making her pass or fail some secret financial test.Thats totally a sure way to get rejected. Most women dont like to hear a man expecting them to pay for anything which is ironic. I know this from firsthand experience. Exactly! You would be getting rejected by the women you have absolutely no interest in dating, so you would save yourself time and money. The women that say, "Sounds good to me!" should be the only ones you date. Link to post Share on other sites
Sanman Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Exactly! You would be getting rejected by the women you have absolutely no interest in dating, so you would save yourself time and money. The women that say, "Sounds good to me!" should be the only ones you date. Now, let's be fair. Stating such a thing would turn a lot women off including ones that might pay. It is the same way a woman does not get on the phone before the date and ask 'You'll be paying for everything, right?' to a prospective date. If she has manners, she reaches into her purse and pretends to offer to pay at the end of the night. Link to post Share on other sites
Sanman Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Most likely dollar bills. Though that wouldn't be a terribly efficient way of saving his American countrymen from the deep hole the 'thousands of dollars' that they have 'all spent on early dates' might have burnt into their pockets... To be fair to Dasein, if you have a busy dating career as a guy, it can be thousands of dollars even in one year here in NYC. I know I have spent that much early in my dating career. Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 To be fair to Dasein, if you have a busy dating career as a guy, it can be thousands of dollars even in one year here in NYC. I know I have spent that much early in my dating career. I recall, around 20 years ago, taking a two year hiatus from dating and, instead, putting the money I had been spending on dating into Exxon stock. During that time, the account grew to nearly 3K, including dividends, later growing further as a 'rejection fund', receiving a typical dating cost every time a woman rejected my offers. I had originally earmarked it to help pay for a wedding ring should I ever meet someone but ultimately paid for that out of other funds. Most of that asset went to pay part of our MC bill. Yeah, dating, if you're a man who generally pays for the process, as I did, can be expensive, even in a low cost of living area such as where I live. It all adds up. I've been re-visiting that plan. Oil seems to be a lot more stable and appreciating than dating 2 Link to post Share on other sites
maybealone Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Now, let's be fair. Stating such a thing would turn a lot women off including ones that might pay. Maybe, but it is far less of a turnoff than a man who expects a woman to read his mind. Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 To be fair to Dasein, if you have a busy dating career as a guy, it can be thousands of dollars even in one year here in NYC. I know I have spent that much early in my dating career. It can be, but it also can not be. There are plenty of women who have spent thousands of dollars on getting ready for dates alone. But it would be extremely disingenious (not to mention blame-shifting) for me to say that 'the average woman is expected to spend thousands of dollars getting ready for dates, and anyone who suggests anything to the contrary is inexperienced'. Everyone has a choice, and if they choose to spend their thousands of dollars, it's on them. I absolutely do know men and women who did NOT spend thousands of dollars on early dating or getting ready for early dates. Link to post Share on other sites
dasein Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Interesting. Men here often refer to humans being animals when trying to justify their attraction to beautiful young women. Why is it any different for women?? I know that primates trade meat or other things for sex. I haven't seen many if any men posting this, but any justification of human behavior via the animal kingdom is inane. There are biological drives in place in humans, seeking attractive mates and the best genetics is one. Paying for dates is a -social- convention, though, so different. Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Here's my historical metrics: Generally four to five dates a month, at that time costing between 20 and 30 dollars per date, all inclusive. Picking the mid-range, 25, that would be 100.00 per month, minimum, or 1200.00 per year. If the dating developed into something where we were interacting more often than that, then those iterations would increase the tally. I didn't include personal grooming costs, clothing costs and/or transportation costs in the tally. As an example, I would occasionally do 'free dates' of bike riding at the river, and didn't include the cap costs of the bikes, the bike carrier, the car, or the fuel to drive 40 miles to the river and back, all a part of the image of providing a 'free date'. Right now, if I were to do 'free dates', fuel costs about 15 bucks just to get to town and back. Again, I don't include that, since I choose to live where I live and enjoy it immensely. I'm still of the mind that a man pays for the early dates, and most women of my generation and in my location embrace and value that perspective, or have shown by their words and actions that they do, regardless of their personal ability to pay. So, again, there are choices: Play by the rules and date local ladies. Search out exceptions to the rules. Change locations for a different perspective. Don't date. I choose the latter at this time of life. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Mme. Chaucer Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 That men are supposed to pay for women because that's how animals do it is simply an inane notion. I'm sure you know that, and would prefer not to be raped or treated in the other bestial ways that animals treat other animals. I don't think that men are "supposed" to pay for women, as I have said plenty of times. I don't use animal analogies for dating behavior either, unless it's just for fun. But, last night I was watching a National Geographic program about animals and, naturally, their mating behavior. Part of it featured these adorable little Gentoo penguins. The male really had to work to impress the female, after first (rather respectfully) ascertaining whether she was already mated and was interested. He brought her presents (rocks) and built her a nest. It worked! I also learned things I had never heard of before about the mating and breeding habits of Spinner dolphins. The females mate with many different males over the course of a few weeks. All the males protect and defend the mothers and young within their social group. The paternity of the offspring is not an issue. Nothing like raping was taking place among these populations (and it doesn't happen in my animal breeding operations here on our farm, either - females are very participatory and selective among both dogs and sheep. NO female of either species gets bred against her will. Breeding OLNY occurs when the females are 100% ready to be bred, in all cases). Again, I don't ascribe animal behaviors to humans, even though I am very in touch with the reality that we ARE animals and we do have our own deeply rooted animal instincts, impulses and drives. Breeding and mating behaviors are interesting, though. None of this has anything to do with why you think it's appropriate to call a poster's use of animal analogies "inane," but feel righteous yourself in using false information (animal "rape" as the norm) or the first video you can find to support your claims as "proof" about what women do and think. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
dasein Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 So, again, there are choices: Play by the rules and date local ladies. Search out exceptions to the rules. Change locations for a different perspective. Don't date. I choose the latter at this time of life. Agreed, and none of those choices precludes exposing the "man pays" standard for the hypocrisy it is in venues such as this. Link to post Share on other sites
dasein Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 But, last night I was watching a National Geographic program Lots of forcible sex takes place in the animal kingdom. Of course that's not rape as animals are driven by instinct. That you drew a conclusion via a television program that children might watch about forcible sex in the animal kingdom is funny. There is plenty of "rape" type behavior, especially among higher mammals. This is a fact of animal behavior. None of this has anything to do with why you think it's appropriate to call a poster's use of animal analogies "inane," but feel righteous yourself in using false information (animal "rape" as the norm) or the first video you can find to support your claims as "proof" about what women do and think. No, I don't claim to prove things here. Facts are facts though. If I happen to use the word "inane" instead of "unreasonable" or some other word describing opinion or an argument posted here, get over it. If you find a point I make here "inane" feel free to say as such. Not holding my breath, as you rarely post any substantive arguments or responses other than with respect to tangential things. Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 I recall feeling similarly about 'hypocrisy' at a younger age, generally in my late 20's/early 30's when 'women's lib' was maturing, and that's ultimately where I came up with the choice I related above. It was my rebellion against the hypocrisy. Choosing not to play. My exW was more of a moderate amongst her peers, tending to be more proactive and generous during the dating process, so I counted her as an 'exception' to the local rules, but distance (still local but an hour away) mitigated this somewhat. Can a 'revolution' be mounted against personal preference and proclivity not otherwise proscribed by law? Perhaps, but I'll leave that revolution for the younger gents to fight. Good luck to them. Link to post Share on other sites
mesmerized Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 I haven't seen many if any men posting this, but any justification of human behavior via the animal kingdom is inane. There are biological drives in place in humans, seeking attractive mates and the best genetics is one. Paying for dates is a -social- convention, though, so different. A social convention that is common among our primates too. Maybe just like how wanting a partner with good genes is built in us, wanting a partner who can protect and provide is built in us too. Link to post Share on other sites
musemaj11 Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 I don't like the nature excuse either way though I do think it has some truth to it. Also, if we go by nature, women are supposed to be promiscuous too, it's not just a male thing. Other than the bonobos, I cant recall any other primates in which the females are promiscuous. Exactly! You would be getting rejected by the women you have absolutely no interest in dating, so you would save yourself time and money. The women that say, "Sounds good to me!" should be the only ones you date. When Im attracted to a woman, one thing is sure is that I want to have sex with her. So if a woman doesnt return any financial generosity by the second date which would automatically erase my long term interest in her, I still want to have the option to keep seeing her for strictly sexual purpose even if I have to keep paying for it. Considering that most women are so cheap when it comes to money, then if I follow your advice Im not going to get sex very often since most women would reject me from the get go. Anyway, Im fair. If you want me for money, then I want you for sex. But if you want me for my heart, then I want you for your heart also. Maybe, but it is far less of a turnoff than a man who expects a woman to read his mind. It cant be a turn off if she doesnt know it. If a woman expects me to pay for everything on a date, I grow negative feelings toward her, but I dont say anything and I pay anyway. So she cant get turned off since she never know that inside I put her in the prostitute category. Link to post Share on other sites
dasein Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Can a 'revolution' be mounted against personal preference and proclivity not otherwise proscribed by law? Perhaps, but I'll leave that revolution for the younger gents to fight. Good luck to them. The revolution already happened. I just want to see women taking consistent attitudes that don't equate to a cafeteria plan about equality. Many do this, some in this very thread. Others refuse to even discuss the direct issues: 1. Is the standard that men pay for early dates the predominant social standard in U.S. (or other) dating culture? If so, and more importantly is this standard right or wrong in a supposed equal society? Does this rise to the level of discrimination against men? 2. Are men often slandered and cheap-called when we don't pay? More importantly, is this right or wrong when it takes place? Does this rise to the level of discrimination against men? 3. Are men expected to accept an undue amount of financial risk in early dates based on the modern dating convention that people often date someone a few times then reject them? More importantly, is this right or wrong? Does it rise to a level of discrimination against men? Instead we have all sorts of "talking around" the issues via references to nebulous concepts such as "chivalry," "generosity," "animals," "some guys I know who don't spend much on dates," etc. OR calling men whiners and less than for even complaining about this. Same old same old, women's issues are important, men's are not, especially if the men's issue in question benefits women unduly. That's what a reasonable reader of this thread and so many others similar here could conclude. But it doesn't surprise me that many women simply won't admit it when an unfair social convention benefits them, and this exposes what many women actually mean by the term "equality," "all the benefits women got in the past with none of the responsibility." Link to post Share on other sites
mesmerized Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Other than the bonobos, I cant recall any other primates in which the females are promiscuous. Chimpanzees too and these two are closest relatives to humans lol Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 The revolution already happened.I meant can we men mount a revolution against the 'cafeteria plan' of personal preference and proclivity of women in the realm of who pays for dates? TBH, back in the day, I doubt the choice of one good and generous man to disengage made not one bit of difference in the totality of the dynamic. It would take millions to even make a dent. As a canary, recent contact with my exW indicates the guy who was living with her while we were divorcing has departed. No doubt another guy willing to pay for dates will replace him, or already has. When I was younger I used to opine that we (men) could never get together on this issue because there's always going to be a man or men for whom fµcking was more important than social dynamics or 'revolutions'. Those men simply fill the holes we non-conformists leave with our 'protest', whether overt (directly confronting women on the issue, as often done here) or simply disengaging. My 'good luck to them' referred to that dynamic. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts