Hyerdahl wrote:
> bluesmama wrote:


> > > You said yourself that you preferred to date men who had
> > > "crushes" on you based upon their willingness to
pay for your
> > > company.  You then turn around and then test to see how
> > > much shit they would take?  Do I have it right?
> >
> > I said what? Feel free to point me to those particular posts. Your
> > inferences are your own responsibility.

Golly, it's been such a long time that I may have confused
you for Goddessbaybee?  I'm 90% sure that it was you that said
something about you wanting to make sure the man had a crush
on you or wasn't just a "hookup".

> 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...

>  A man
> who would just capitulate to everything a woman says is certainly a
> liar.

Versus someone who capitaluates to some or many things?

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.  The sooner he
takes charge of the relationship, the better.

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.
(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.)

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?
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!)

> 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.

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.

>  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.

Player asker-pays games to snarf free meals is incredibly
manipulative.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/1/05 4:47:54 PM ---