GoddessBaybee wrote:
> In article ,
> mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com says...
> 
> >My point is that this guy didn't "use" her.  He took her
> >out for fancy dinners, he treated her with basic respect,
> >he had sex with her, and he left.  If she wanted
> >more out of the relationship, perhaps she should
> >have focused upon HIM as a person and not HIM
> >as an ATM machine to pay for free meals?
>
> Do you assume that if a woman allows a man to treat her to dinner she
is only
> interested in him for money?

Hello Baybee,

Before we begin, I hope we can get a "fresh" (or at least
honest) start and try to debate over the issues at hand
rather than over what prejudices we may be projecting
upon each other.

You stated in a previous post that the reason you wanted a
traditional date was to "test" the motives of the man
that he wasn't just wanting a shack up.  I won't
say, therefore, that you assume that men who are just
wanting to go back to the room and talk are therefore,
by definition, out for a shack up.  You aren't
"assuming" this but just taking an extra step to ensure
you aren't a casuality.

I know that there are plenty of women who really don't
have bad intentions but maybe are just shy and the
man asks them out and they assume he's paying not
out of maliciousness or even demands, but just
that seems reasonable to her.  So the answer to your
question is a no.

However, just as there are sleazebag men who use
reasonable doubt to squeeze under women's radars,
there are women who play the "asker pays" game
(or other games) to "allow" men to pay.  I think the
way I could tell was her reaction if I didn't jump
to pay and started a discussion on the issue.  I have
met a few women who were very calm and rational
and could listen to my concerns and work something out.
More got REAL nasty or just left.

Strangely enough, the working class women were more
sympathetic.  They generally worked hard for a living
and could sympathize with us Al Bundy's about wanting
to be careful about being taken advantage of and
even developed a mutual sympathy.  "He's worried
and has concerns and I do too!"  Or often, it was
because they really liked me.

It was generally the spoiled girls or the users who
quickly got up and left.  So it also was a useful
tool for me.

You talk about the "hook up" guys but for men such as me,
who are from a generation where "dating" was our
primary sexual outlet (outside of prostitutes), there
generally are a lot of teases or women taking us
for a ride even unintentionally.

> When a date treated me to dinner, it never caused
> me to view him as an "ATM machine".

Once again, I won't project anything upon you.  I will
say, however, that I get the impression that many
women view men as ATM's machines so much as a matter
of course that it's subconscious to them.  It's like
boys who don't view their mothers as maids but at the
same time take it for granted that she makes his
beds and cleans their rooms.

Basically, if you think a man is supposed to pay,
directly or indirectly, for a dates companionship
than he's an ATM machine.  That's simply what an
ATM machine does: It gives you money.

> It was simply dating...you know a chance to
> get to know each other in a romantic way.  Treating in the early
stages of a
> relationship is a nice gesture, IMO, and it in no way caused me to
dehumanize
> the guy in question.

When it's one sided, it's dehumanizing.  Remember what you
said about the prostitute being a cum receptacle?  If a
man is being pressured into treating, then it's no longer
a treat.  It's a duty.  A CHORE.  In a way, the woman
enjoying the dinner date is enjoying a masturbatory
experience.

Most men know that if they fail to pay, many women will nastily
take it out on them later.  I am honestly spellbound
how ANYONE sees romance today in this ritual.  I think
you got lucky.  Most women (and men) are miserable with
the experience but go though with it, I imagine, because
that's the best either get.  There are so many better
ways to have a first date or experience together than
blowing money just for the sake of blowing money.

> Also, I never went out with guys I had no romantic
> interest in, simply to get a free meal out of it (as you seem to be
suggesting) .

I honestly didn't make that an issue.  In some ways, this
makes it worse "Hey!  I only insist upon free meals
for my company from men I like!"

Really, Baybee, what makes you gals tick?  I have heard
women tell me that if they don't like the guy, they offer
to pay their share.  "I'll show him!  I'll give him money!" :-)
"Eeek!  No!  Anything but money!" :-)

> Additionally, I never felt I owed the guy sexual favors in return for
paying for
> a date.

As I said, this makes it (not necessarily for you so don't
take it personally) sexual extortion rather than a form
of prostitution.  It makes the men beggars instead of Johns.

> >Get it?
> >
> >Without knowing it, these women wind up tricked (pardon
> >the pun) down the road into psuedo prostitution.
> >
> >Their reasoning for doing so sounds very similar to prostitutes
> >trying to talk their way out of a conviction: "Why, he
> >was just asking for directions officer!"  (I have a former boss
> >who really did ask one of them for directions and he
> >got nailed with a citation.  His lawyer got it dismissed :-)
> >
> >Here's some of the reasons I heard (and my counter-arguments):
> >
> >1) I'm making sure he's not a cheapskate!
> >(counter: So you're making sure you'll get something out of him
> >for sexual favors in the future?  This makes it less a form
> >of prostitution, how?)
> >
> >2) I don't want a guy whose going to be a mooch!
> >(counter: So it's ok for you to act like one?)
> >
> >3) I'm old-fashioned!
> >(counter: How?  You think women shouldn't have the right to vote
too?
> >Or do you want to be like the Vanderbilts who worked children to
death
> >in the coal mines for 5 cents an hour?  "Old Fashioned" as in
greedy?)
> >
> >4) I'm testing him to make sure he's serious (this comes from you)
> >(counter: There's plenty of ways a truly traditional woman can
> >test a man without mooching meals from him (which doesn't
> >work anyway as my sister found out).  It's called COURTSHIP
> >and means spending time (a lot of it) before any concept of
> >sex is even thought about.  No money need be spent.
>
> Yep, but even if money is spent, a woman can still spend a lot of
time getting
> to know the guy before having sex with him.  I did.

Hey, I'll say that it is possible for the "traditional" dating
system as we discuss it to work.

However, I get the impression in our society that this isn't
much better odds than "shacking up" when it comes to intimacy.
It's easy for you to take your time when someone else pays
the tab.   For men, every time he goes out with a woman
(even one he has a crush on, maybe ESPECIALLY because)
he has to wonder if she's rolling him for dates and maybe
just using him for filler until the right guy comes around
and she dumps him.  (It happens a LOT.)

Let's say you had a crush on a guy.  Would you like it if
that guy then played hard to get and yanked your chain
to make sure YOU were being sincere?

In Europe, women generally treat men with a lot more respect
and are more open and flirtateous than here.  I won't
blame the women but just say that a lot is due to
the breakdown of communication.  Men wanted "shack ups"
and prostitution was illegal so many men treated ALL
women as whores.

> I don't think treating on a
> date in anyway obligates sexual favors.

Except it's not really "treating" if the guy was snookered
or pressured into it.

> However, I only dated guys who I found
> romantically appealing, so sexual attraction was always part of the
equation
> anyway.
>
> >I'm sorry some of this is long but as the target for this form
> >of sexual extortion, I learned to be careful.  I never belonged
> >to a frat so I couldn't get cheap sex in that manner.
> >
> >> >> >One benefit of the prostitution/john relationship is that
> >> >> >it's honest.  Some of the best conversations I've had
> >> >> >have been with prostitutes.  It was incredible to talk
> >> >> >to someone after having sex with them without EVER
> >> >> >having had to feel a need to put on an act.
> >> >>
> >> >> These conversations may be honest on *your* part, but the
> >> >> prostitute is being paid to put on an act.
> >> >
> >> >HAHAHAHA!
> >> >You seem to be able to figure out how a prostitute might
> >> >be motivated to lie but you believe that everything
> >> >a man is saying who risks money in the hopes of having
> >> >sex with you someday MUST be the absolute God's truth. :-)
> >>
> >> huh?
> >> I know people (men and women) lie Mark.  Like duh.
> >> When analyzing someone's character, I spend a great deal of time
> >> considering all the info, and look at their actions and words.  I
never
> >> said anything absurd like "all guys who buy a woman dinner on a
date
> >> are great guys and have upstanding values", that sure aint true.
> >> However, IME the guys who wanted to date me sure seemed a lot more

> >> on the up and up than the guys who'd simply want
> >> to hook up with me after some party or something.
> >>
> >> Maybe this is a generation gap thang.
> >> Maybe back in your day dating was a lot more common.
> >> With young people today, a lot of guys seem to only bother with
> >> the formal dating thang if they actually like the woman.
> >> Random hook-ups are more common... they occasionally lead to
dating,
> >> but not usually.  Judging from the people I know, these hook-ups
are
> >> usually just a one nite thang, or they lead to a non-dating,
> >> non-committed "boodie call" type of relationship. 
If a girl is
looking
> >> for a more serious relationship,expecting
> >> the guy to ask her out on a formal date is a good idea, IME.
> >
> >Agreed.  I've heard about this as well.  I heard something like 15%
of
> >20somethings were herpes simplex positive?  Eeek!
>
> Yeah, it's pretty disturbing.
> But Mark, considering that herpes can be spread even if condoms are
used and
> even when no visible rash is present, I'd have to assume that
prostitutes would
> be a pretty big herpes risk.  Doesn't this concern you?

"Condoms do not provide 100 percent protection because a lesion
may be found where the condom doesn't cover. But, used consistently,
they are the best available form of prevention."

I don't think prostitutes are a huge risk.  I have been checked out
since and I'm 100% clean.  Also, the prostitutes I went to
had gone to a doctor regularly probably unlike most women
who shack-up.

> >But what about men who are basically treated like Johns
> >but without the respect?  What about us when women
> >use sexual extortion?
> >
> >Please hear me out here:
> >
> >I wasn't just being cheap as you know.  I was willing to spend money
> >in the long run.  I just didn't want to be treated like a chump.
>
> While courting your foreign bride, I'm assuming you had to endure
lots and lots
> of expenses which she did not.  That the whole endeavor was much more
> financially risky for you than for her.  Yet this doesn't seem to
bother you.
> I don't get it.

Note that most of that money wasn't spent on her.  Most of
it was in travel expenses.  Also, much of our courtship occurred
by letters and phone.

> >I offered to go out with them for picnics.  Or have them over
> >for tea (and vice versa) in a safe environment (I lived in
> >a home with a prominent television figure and had a private
> >but publicly viewable patio)  I was willing to meet her folks.
> >etc.  I wanted to take time to get to know them.
>
> Sounds reasonable.
> I've never demanded or expected expensive lobster dinners or
anything.
> Coffee dates, picnics, etc have always been fine with me.  Free art
shows etc,
> have also been fine.  However, if I guy never offered to pay in the
early stages
> of a relationship, even for something minuscule like a cup of coffee,
I'd
> probably take that as a bad sign.

You say it's not about money and then you turn around and say
that it is even if it's a token display.

My wife didn't kiss me on the first date.  I didn't take
that as a bad sign.  Courtship is a system of establishing
MUTUAL trust.  So far, it appears as if the man's motives
are the only ones being tested.  In the process of trying
to have a more sincere relationship, most women engage
in behaviour that only arouses men's suspicans of her
motives.  Is that stupidity?

> >No F'ing way I heard.  Put up (the cash) or get out.  I got out.
>
> Did women actually say this to you, or did they simply stop dating
you?

A few got nasty but most "simply" stopped dating me.
However they "said" it, they were putting the value of the date
based upon me spending money on them.

It ain't pretty out there...

> >> ...but then again, I've never had sex with a stranger or with
someone
> >> I found physically and/or emotionally repulsive.  I imagine
prostitutes
> >> have to endure it quite often, but then again they are financially

> >> compensated. Maybe it's worth it to them, but I have no interest
in that
> >> lifestyle.
> >
> >I'm happy (truly) things worked out for you.
>
> Thanks.
> ;)
>
> >Unfortunately, a lot of women now are disappointed as men
> >use the "three date rule" (have you heard of that one) and
> >don't treat women much better.
>
> Yeah, I think the "three date rule" is absurd.

Agreed.  But so is the "women ALLOW the man to pay or she
stops dating him" rule too.

Part of what made a foreign courtship so much more romantic
was that we both expected the unexpected.  We were both
willing to try different and unusual ways to make
our relationship work, compromise, and even communicate
with each other.  Even the gesture of asking for a
sugarcube involved working at communication.  Some people
wouldn't want to bother and would consider what
we went through to be too much work.

In a way, the "three date" or "9 date" or whatever system
of the guy asking the woman out, throwing some money
at dinners, not saying something stupid, and getting
in the sack with her at a certain point is "shacking up"
and lacks intimacy as much as the frat room experience
you were talking about.  It's emotional as well as
physical masturbation.

It just turns out that this form of emotional masturbation
is empowering to the woman so she doesn't notice it.
But for most men, it's like cleaning the toilet.

Back to Europe: The women know the guy can go to a hooker
(and even encourage him to do so) rather than feed
her lines to get her in the sack.  If a man is spending
time with a woman, he probably does like her.
Thomas Aquinas literally compared prostitution to a sewer.
It dredges away sin and tawdry behaviour from normal
people.  Sure, it's ugly that men pay for someone
else to clean their toilet.  But wouldn't you rather
have them do that than try to trick you into doing it?

My sister was depressed about the behaviour of men but
it was also clear that she regarded them as ATM's
with the moral equivalence argument of "Well,
men treat us as sex objects so I expect them to pay!"
That's a moral dichotomy SHE chose to buy into.
Not all men are like that, but she ran with that crowd.
You did too even if unknowingly.

You got REAL lucky!

> IMO, Three dates is waaaaay to
> soon in terms of getting to know the guy, except maybe in rare cases
such where
> you've been friends with the guy for a long time before dating.

If you were paying everytime, it would be incredible how
quickly you would want things to go.

I'm reminded of a former girlfriend who loved to watch
exercise programs while she lied down on the couch.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100