In article ,
 "Hyerdahl"  wrote:
> mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:

> > > It seems to me that greg is misinterpreting what you have to say,
> > which is that first dates are to assess whether or not the person you
> are with is someone worth seeing again, in the possibility of a LTR.
> >
> > If that's what he's paying for, then he should get something
> > for his money.  If she's not selling sex, there may be something
> > else he can get...
>
> Mark, it's not about "getting" anything, other than sharing a nice
> dinner or drink and getting to know another person.  And I have no
> objection to going dutch, just so the asker makes himself or herself
> perfectly clear about that.

If that's the case, then why should it matter whether
he makes it clear or not?  If it's not about getting
something, then it shouldn't upset the askee if
it turns out to be dutch, yes?

Saying money doesn't matter and then being upset when
they don't get something for free is laughably
hypocritical.  The asker takes the emotional risk
to be clear in the first place in order for the meeting
to occur.  If the askee has expectations,
then they would have made things clear, yes?

I think I made this point before but it's worth repeating:
Nobody with proper manners I know arrives for a
personal event held by someone else without a gift.
You talked before about not being expected to pay
for a dinner someone throws at their home.  Sure.
But if you are properly mannered, you'll have a bottle
of wine in your hand.  ALSO, the host determines what
is to be served absolutely.

>  A man who would just capitulate to everything a woman says is
> certainly a liar.
> >
> > Versus someone who capitaluates to some or many things?
>
> Capitulating instead of having actual agreement, seems to me a form of
> lying.

This is an interesting side discussion.

I don't think it is.  On the contrary, the person whose
using pressure to get the other person to capituate really
shouldn't be surprised if the person is not giving
their agreement fully and heartily since if they were,
then the pressure wouldn't be needed, yes?

> It reminds my of that film called "Runnaway Bride" with Julia
> Roberts.  She kept ditching men at the alter, when she discovered that
> she was capitulating, by becomming what those men wanted, instead of
> finding out who she, herself was and how she "liked her eggs" cooked.
> Capitulating is deceptive.

My wife likes that film.  (This is my explanation for having
watched it :-)

I came off with a different impression and here's the
evidence: Richard Gere noted that she never really
committed to the relationships while the men put
a huge personal and emotional risk.  One guy got
a rose tattoo on his chest, for example.  Nowhere
did anyone see the men as being anything other than
generous and supportive for her.

In fact, in the film, her friend (Joan Cusack) tells her
that she's a messed up, flirtateous individual.
It wasn't her problem that she was being taken advantage
of by men, her problem was that she played head games
with others and herself.

In the film, Richard Gere's character quickly wins the heart
of everyone around him while SHE is queen of her "hood"
and only because she's wrapped them (mostly the men)
around her little finger.  In real life, there's no way
that someone like Gere would have fallen for someone like her.
The film was "Revenge of the Nerds, II" for women.

>  If women want men to challenge them to keep them from running around
> with scissors, then women "capitulate" any moral authority
or notion of
> equality.
>
> I don't know any women who have asked men to "keep them from running
> around with scissors".

The question is whether you know any women, including yourself,
who ever have handled responsibility without crying
out victim status as a girl at some point.
You have several different ways to justify transfers
of money and protection from men (including in this post)
to women.

> Perhaps arrogant sexist male supremacists
> simply believe things about women that are untrue, in the hope they can
> find a woman who will believe them.  :-)  In the end, I think men have
> to go to Russia for that level of belief.  :-)  And, in the meantime,
> women still need not marry sexists.

Sure, the women can marry men who aren't sexists and don't
have a lot of cash, but that's about as useful as them
having the choice for lesbian civil unions...

>  The sooner he takes charge of the relationship, the better.
>
> And, you've accomplished that, or think you have, by buying a Russian
> bride, but how does that really help men who either can't afford to buy
> a bride, or men who realize that is only a stop-gap measure when it
> comes to actually securing a relationship?

Which is it?  Do men such as myself "buy" "Russian" brides
because we're wealthy and sexist or because we're poor
and sexist and can't afford local American women?  :-)

Overall, it doesn't take a lot to "buy" a foreign woman:
plane tickets aren't that expensive.  They're about
half a month's rent.  But even so, it does represent
a lot of money to put up front compared to a "date".

A coffee date, as I point out above, can be quite
inexpensive.  It's the AFTER part where the man has
to worry: Whether the woman will push him out the door
(but still want his money) the moment it suits her.

> > Let's go back to the coffee situation: He should have
> > taken charge and since it's a "date", gotten her to hold
> > his arm and have him seat her in full presence of everyone.
>
> Geeze.....it's been a while since I've been on a date :-)

HAHAHAHA!  No F'ing kidding! :-)  But I think you meant
it a different way.  Do you still have an imaginary partner?

> but I don't
> see the first date scenerio quite that way.  Back in my dating days,the
> stone age, the man would usually pick up the woman, and drive her to
> have an ice cream soda, or dinner.  ;-)  It's been a while.  :-)  The
> man would pay.  There was no dispute.  It was a different time.
> Today, I watched my sons date; they usually met either the girl or a
> group of people at a club or on the wharf, etc. and the one who paid
> was either the one who had money at the time, or the one who suggested
> a meal.  It seems much more casual today.

So you don't have a daughter now?  She must have done something
to irk you.  Did she marry a conservative Christian?

> > (This makes it tough for her to be seen with lots of
> > other guys in the same place.  It makes her look
> > like a player.)
> >
> Like I said, I'm no present-day dating expert, but today it seems more
> casual, and a lot of times a group of friends just get together, with
> romance as an aside.

Indeed.  They call them "hookups" today.  In that case,
the asker-pays game is irrelvent but we weren't talking about that.

After all, if such women were commonly finding perfect guys
then they wouldn't have gone out with me. :-)

> > He should have then proceeded to dominate the conversation
> > and ask her the "hot seat" questions: What does she
> > want out of the relationship, what are her intentions?
>
> Mark, you're starting to sound like my father.  :-)  I really admire
> the young people today, in that they are placing romance in it's proper
> position, as being less important than friendship first.

If that's the case, then I'm honored.  Most men back then
lectured their daughters about grilling gentlemen while
the men were left to fend for themselves (and figure
things out on the streets.)

My father did give me a very usable "birds and the bees" lecture.

> > He's already shown his intentions so it's totally fair
> > for him to grill her about hers.  If she hasn't
> > yet decided she wants him for a "LTR", why not?
> > Spit it out!  (pardon any pun!)
>
> So, you think most people automatically KNOW ....on the first date...
> whether or not that person fills the bill for a LTR?

Why not?  She's not marrying him right then and there.  She's
merely saying whether he fulfills the basic requirements
and telling him what she wants out of a relationship in
general.

I got the impression that a lot of American women waste
time (unlike foreign women) with the three date rule
game, etc.  For both people's sakes, why not figure out
what matters?  In some cases, the man may want to just
have a "hookup" or vice-versa while other person is
more serious.

This way also allows people to seperate mis-matches from
personal (he didn't fit the bill) versus what
both people want overall (she didn't want the same things.)

Looking back, from a very calm emotional place today,
I certainly would have done things differently.

>  Hmmm  I guess I'm
> just a slow learner.  :-)  Before I made a commitment it took me ...18
> mos. with the person, and lots and lots of dating.  Of course,
> sometimes I paid; sometimes I didn't.

Yeah, I betcha did pay. :-)

Seriously, my hypothesis is that women such as you who
are so full of venom usually are plain-janes who want
to take it out on men for saving the best treatment
for the hottest women.  :-)

> > > Who would want to continue dating someone so insecure as to have to
> > lie> in hopes of a second date?
> >
> > That's the pot calling the kettle black since many women
> > are so insecure as they cannot handle the risk of rejection
> > or blowing money on a date that won't work out.
>
> Mark, traditions die hard, but they do die eventually when the social
> situations change.

Unless, the primal emotional needs of women outweigh
the legal and social situation.

I can be surrounded by health food stores but still
go to McD's for breakfast.  By the same token,
it's becoming very clear to most people that the social
experiment proposed during the 70's, of women welcoming
true equality and _handling_ the burdens has proven
to be a laughable failure.

>  Today, more women are working outside the home than
> at any other time in history.

We can also say that there are more women working INSIDE
the home that at any other time in history since the
population has grown since the 50's.

> That changes things.

Agreed.  It also makes it more difficult for women
to have men meet up to traditional expectations.

> However, let's not
> forget that these women are working within a framework where men also
> have expectaion, and that many men are, in fact, turned off when women
> come on too strong, especially in terms of a first date.

Or maybe, the men just didn't find that particular woman
attractive.  Yes, that sounds so much more pleasant. :-)

I have a co-worker back in California who realized early
on that just sitting at the bar wasn't getting her anywhere
since the hottest guys were having the women jump
all over them and she was missing out.  The guys
didn't like her "come ons" sometimes, but that was
more preferable to her than waiting for less attractive
men to feel comfortable and approach her.

>  I don't think
> it has much to do with money tho.

Ultimately, it does.

I know some women who got boytoys and then wound up
miserable when he didn't bring home as much as she did.

> > Looking back in context, a cup of coffee is actually a very
> > very very cheap price to pay for the man being in control
> > and able to pick the person they want to ask out.
>
> Sure, there's some limited control in selection I suppose, and if women
> want to do the same, it would work that way for them as well.

Indeed.  Or they could go to "Russia" and buy a mate.

The problem is that involves taking emotional risks and
spending some of their own precious money.  That's like
asking a man to walk around with a purse.  Sure, I could
do it physically but emotionally is another matter.

> However,
> I think some women, would place themselves in the situation of being
> asked rather than doing the asking. Men are tuned into that.  :-)

Yeah, we are.  The problem with that is that the men
tuned in aren't necessarily the same guys that they
want to ask them out.

Thanks to Anita "Coke Can" Hill, it's possible that even
if the guy does want to ask her out, he may have
second thoughts.  Viva le Internet!

Of course, since you were aware of this from the beginning
and rationalizing an "asker pays" position knowing
the man is usually the asker, then your use of gender
neutral terms and other situations is clearly dishonest.

> As to leadership, I'd much rather have a leader who simply told the
> truth.  I don't see that sex/gender matters> there; you either tell the
> truth or you don't.

See where I pointed out your intellectual dishonesty above:
Women who play "asker pays" games generally are not
in a position to lecture about morality.

> > Player asker-pays games to snarf free meals is incredibly
> > manipulative.
>
> Mark, I appreciate your skills in debate, so I'm not being a smart ass
> here, when I say that most women don't date for a free meal.

Thank you.  And I shall respond that you're making
a non-sequitur.  I never said they dated for a free meal.
I would say that most NEED free meals to feel
emotionally satisfied on a date.

>  If they
> really just wanted a free meal, they could hang out at convention
> centers or go to bridal receptions.  :-)

I could just as easily say that men don't date women
for orgasms either.  Most get that from masturbation
quite effectively.  However, they do derive a special
satisfaction from sex.  In other words, it's not
the free meal necessarily but the conditions under
which it occurs.

You continue to argue that I'm saying that women are going
hungry lest they not get free meals on dates.  I'm
clearly not making that case.  I am saying that
women have an emotional set of needs from men that
are very difficult for them to expect in this day and age:

1) The man should take the emotional risk and ask them out.
2) The man should happily pay for her company in "agreement"
3) He should back up that payment with a regular
wage that will make him a stable mate.

There simply isn't a lot of room there for the guy
to also be a good "intellectual" match and also
win modeling contests.

Like you said, times were different before when men
"oppressed" women and had the resources to give them
what they emotionally crave and often require for
long term financial well being.  The power is very
quickly shifting.  Those BJD DVD's don't fly off
the shelf for nothing!

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/2/05 4:48:14 PM ---