cv wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:41:41 -0800, bluesmama wrote:
>
> >
> > Jim wrote:
> >> Well guys, I admit it.  I made a mistake that I will learn from.
I
> > was
> >> corresponding with a 'career-oriented' single early 40's woman in
> > online
> >> dating.  I asked if she was interested in meeting one night after
> > work for a
> >> cup of coffee as she indicated she enjoys a good cup of coffee.
What
> > I had
> >> in mind was a starbucks, or something cheaper...nothing
extravagant
> > as it
> >> was a first date. She said "Coffee or a drink sounds
good".   So,
we
> > agreed
> >> to meet near her office (in NYC)...  so she picked a restaurant
that
> > caters
> >> to the Broadway musical crowd.  We get in and she orders a glass
of
> >> wine....I was planning on a coffee, but to be social, I followed
her
> > lead
> >> and had a glass of wine.  We exchanged pleasant conversation and
the
> > bill
> >> arrived and being the man, I naturally offered to pay and she
didn't
> > offer
> >> too much resistance to my magnanimous gesture.....anyways,   a
glass
> > of wine
> >> is not cheap in NYC,  total damage with tip was 20 bucks.   A
medium
> > cup of
> >> coffee at starbucks would have cost me a buck and a half, even if
she
> >
> >> ordered a latte or other fancy coffee beverage, it would have been
a
> > 5
> >> dollar proposition.  Needless to say, two days later, she thanked
me
> > for the
> >> drink and subsequently informed me that she was not interested in
me.
> >  It
> >> just rubbed me the wrong way...I asked her out for a cheap cup of
> > coffee and
> >> she turned it into an expensive glass of wine...she got her
freebie
> > and made
> >> a fool out of me....never again!  A career feminist pig will never
> > take
> >> advantage of me again!  I've learned my lesson!
> >
> > You asked her out, you pay. She asks you out, she should pay.
>
> Don't see how that follows. If both parties agree to go out then they
are
> both interested in getting to know each other. It is more natural
that the
> person who risked rejection by doing the asking is compensated by the
> other person footing the bulk of the bill.
>

It might be more natural, but it seems more fair to me that the person
who initates the date pay, whether that is a man or a woman, and though
it doesn't happen as often (because women have been socialized to wait
for a man to ask, for fear of appearing too "forward") women do ask men
out, and the women who are fair-minded pay, in that case.

> The asker-pays policy has an ugly implied message: that the "askee"
is
> completely disinterested in the asker and won't spend a red cent to
enjoy
> his company. It is up to the asker to charm her. If you are indeed so
> disinterested, just say no. Don't toy with people's time, money and
> emotions.
>
> I also note that this distasteful asker-pays policy almost always
works in
> the women's favor since men do most of the asking.
>
> > Unless
> > you both - gasp! - talk about it and agree to go Dutch.
> >
> > You want to go to Starbucks, insist on Starbucks. You made the
date.
> > You give up your choice (for whatever reason, not wanting to start
a
> > confrontation, not wanting to appear "cheap", hoping
agreeableness
will
> > lead to getting laid later, whatever) then you have to live with
the
> > consequences.
> >
> > No one can take advantage of you unless you let them.
>
> The same reasoning can take all the bite out of hardpan's rules post,
yet
> you found that to be one of the saddest things you'd ever read. Is it
> easier to understand and excuse women's manipulations than men's?

Manipulation by either sex is understandable, but inexcusable. The
reasoning "no one can take advantage of you unless you let them" speaks
to the individual's choice when presented with a situation in which
someone is trying to manipulate them. The motivations of the
manipulator aren't addressed at all, so I don't see how your argument
has any merit.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/18/05 4:59:37 PM ---