"Mark Sobolewski"  wrote in message
news:mark_sobolewski-9B685C.16201702042005{at}news.central.cox.net...
> 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,

I know that in 2 minutes, I don't need a "date"



 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

Except females rarely ask and use the excuse that the man asked as a pretext
for not paying.



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?

Mark, you really are old fashioned. It should always be "dutch" and the
female should always assume you will have sex, and not waste a man's time.
Why else would a man bother with a female? If a man wanted good conversation
he would talk to another man.



>
> 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?

Here's an easy solution. Meet her at her place for a drink ;)


>
> 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 :-)

It sucks.



>
> 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.

Yes, she was a deceitful bitch. And Gere got his hair messed up by her.
Imagine if it was a female they did that to, she'd want to sue sue sue
hahahahaha



>
> In fact, in the film, her friend (Joan Cusack) tells her
> that she's a messed up, flirtateous individual.

She was just another jealous bitter girl because Robert's got more attention
than she did from her husband  lol



> 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.

You're twisted. SHE was the one taking advantage of men's good natures.



>
> 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.

Absolutely. Why would a guy like Gere be manipulated by a somewhat plain
female pushing 40 who works in a hardware store?  haha Ah, only in films
lol



>
> >  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.

You hit a nerve there Mark  lol Careful, I think she's getting the scissors
haha


>
> 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?  :-)

She's very confused I hope she gets help.



>
> 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?

How's your boyfriend pillow?


>
> > 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.

I usually test any female by meeting her at a bar. I'm always late and when
I arrive I see what she's drinking. If she's drinking some wine and it's
PAID FOR she's probably ok. But if she's drinking water and waiting for me
to arrive to pay for the drinks, I dump her:o)




> 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.

IT WAS ALWAYS LIKE THAT  LOL



 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.

Hey I agree with you two old fossils even though I'm probably older. Stop
making such a big thing about fucking, just do it:o)



>
> 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?

There's no such thing as a LTR. Everything in this world is temporary and
transitory.



>
> 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.

Has it ever occurred to you that you don't always know what you want until
you get into something?


>
> 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.  :-)

Truer words were never spoken  haha

>
> > > > 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.

But people never change, you just imagine they do.


>
> 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.

That's not true. Check the statistics from 1900. The marriage rate was even
lower than today and many immigrant females worked in factories and
sweatshops. As did men.



>
> 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.

But that was ALWAYS true.


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

Men don't find pushy females attractive. They find friendly women
attractive.



>
> 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.

So she's a sexist. She wanted the "hot guy" but couldn't get him with her
crude come ons. Personally, I think she should stay in her class and talk to
the short, bald guys in their polyester suits  lol

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