(greg1199{at}yahoo.com) writes:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> howldog (lifeisgood{at}hotmail.com) writes:
>> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:47:40 GMT, "Aggy"

>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>A woman doesn't have to charge for actual sex to be CONSIDERED a
>> >>whore.
>> >
>> > of course not. she can also merely begin to post a bunch of
>> > superior elitist feminst crap to soc.men, to achieve that title.
>>
>> Lets also not forget the proper derivation of " meal hos ", women
>> who go on dates, with zero romantic intent with the guy, but insist
>> on expensive dinners that he gets to pay for.
>
> This is the hard-driving career woman who tells you she's "old
> fashioned" as the two of you approach the restaurant.

Indeed. The thing to do, is ask her how she can contradict herself,
demanding equality, when it suits her, and traditionalism, when
that suits her. Then, tell her to go and look up " double dipping ".

>> As Mark S. well pointed out in that discussion, real prostitutes
>> don't offer, get paid, and then, refuse to do their part.
>
> There's a reason they're called "working girls."  They actually work.

Indeed. Meal hos give prostitutes a bad name.

>> So guys, if dating is in your cards, don't take her to such places.
>> If she just wants you to look, but don't touch, apply an equal policy
>> to what your money is gonna come out for... :-)
>
> Girls often want to get to know you and trust you before they'll have
> sex, so why don't we insist on knowing and trusting them before we'll
> spend money on them?  Why do the knowing and trusting only go one way?

Indeed. If a girl is not yet ready to offer up, then shes also not
ready to get another's offerings.

Those dates should take place at free places, like bookstores.
That way, no one's " puttin' out ".

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
                                    The Man Prayer, Red Green.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/1/05 1:34:32 AM ---