Hyerdahl wrote:
> mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> > the Danimal wrote:
> > > GoddessBaybee wrote:

> > I think what GoddessBaybee is alluding to is that she didn't
> > sell sex, but rather sold the prospect for sex.
> > This is the main rationalization that meal whores
> > use to seperate themselves from ordinary prostitutes:
> > that unlike prostitutes, they do not make a direct
> > simple exchange of sex for money.
>
> I simply don't 'buy' your notion that women date men in order to get
> free meals.  I mean that might have been a dated episode of 'Laverne
> and Shirley' but in America today few women are in need of food so
> badly that they have to date a guy to get it.  :-)

That's what makes it all the more remarkable: The
women clearly have a primal, emotional need for free meals
that goes BEYOND mere physical urgency...

> ?????   You people are so anal!  Good grief; get over yourself, Mark.
> No woman is going to date you so you'll buy her a double-double,
> whatever that is.  :-)

Yet, that's precisely what happened!  Many career women did wind up
having to settle for me precisely because they couldn't
stomach the prospect of asking out a better man and pay for
the privilege.

I did get over it and ultimately often paid for women's meals, but
under my own terms.  Or, I could withhold payment and watch
them squirm.  I was in control.

> > Interestingly enough, men are pushed by the system to
> > be on their best behaviour while women generally are not.
>
> You seem to be suggesting that women's regular behavior might impress
> enough as compared to men's best behavior?  :-)  Well, women
everywhere
> will want to thank you for the complement.  :-)  OTOH, perhaps you
were
> implying that men have a NEED to date that women simply don't have.

I would say that men have certain NEEDS that go beyond the
woman's behaviour on a date. :-)

I was put into a rather tough situation 7 years ago when I dated
a young woman who had a pleasant personality, but also terribly
unattractive.  I WANTED to pay for the date out of sympathy.

[lots clipped out and some text moved above for emphasis]
> A woman goes out with a man to see if she wants
> to get to know him better.  It's just that simple.

A man who goes out with a woman already knows he wants to
get to "know her better".  Maybe not marriage but certainly
he finds her sexually desirable.  (Kudos to Mocsny who pointed
this out before.)

Men don't waste a lot of evenings with women they may find
icky just so they can score free meals.

> > This is why it's not all that uncommon for women to be
> > puzzled as to why a man courts them for a long period
> > of time and then takes off after she sleeps with him.
>
> So, Mark appears to be suggesting that women abide by that book
called
> "The Rules".  :-)  Keep them guessing.  :-)

As some articles pointed out, the rules actually helps to make
the woman quite controllable and predictable: If she doesn't
want to accept a friday date invitation on thursday, then
call her on that day and invite her to the most expensive
restaurant possible (his treat, of course.)  He then
gets the credit for suggesting an expensive place.  The
next time, he can take her for coffee and say: "Well,
I INVITED you to this restaurant but you weren't interested..." :-)

> Myself, I prefer a much
> more honest approach, but that's just me.

Then again, with you it's a moot point.  I am not saying
this to be mean, but merely that your theories about relationships
mean little since you don't put yourself on the line.
Same thing with women in general when it comes to relationships:
Most really aren't in a position to lecture men about
any kind of morality in that subject.

> > Once he's past his personal "point of no return", it makes
> > sense for him to appear the good boy until he's
> > gotten something out of the relationship.
>
> Wow; Mark certainly makes men seem ...mercenary...and not worth
> knowing;

Sure there is:

Such men pay for meals.  :-)

> I guess it's a good thing that most men aren't like that.

Naw.  Many are wimps.  Fortunately, women such as bluesmomma
have reliable tests to make sure they'll stand up to her. :-)

> Poor
> Mark seems to be very afraid that he might buy a woman a steak and
then
> will lost out because she'll never want to see him again.

Later on, it wasn't as major a concern since many women
made the offer to pay their share as a way to dump the guy.
Enough men, bless their hearts, if they didn't view paying
for the date as paying for sex, they viewed it as paying
for the expectation of a second date and the women
didn't like the stalkers. :-)

> > (edit)
>
> >> I don't.  I think it's probably in my best interest to avoid johns
> >  as sex partners.  For one thing, there's the disease risk.
> > >
> > > That argument also applies to humans as sex partners.
>
> A person who would USE another for sex and pay for it, is not someone
> I'd consider worthy of my time.

I'm sure the men of the world are crushed. :-)

Seriously though: STD's happen to people who never have
sex with prostitutes even indirectly.  "Nice people" get
them too.

> I don't particularly dislike people
> who pay for sex;  I simply don't value them enough to spend time with
> them, let alone date them.

Men who don't pay for a woman's company generally aren't
valued either.

The distinction of paying to beg for sex versus paying for
sex directly seems rather laughable.

> > One admirable trait about Johns is they are honest.
>
> Johns are no more or less "honest" than anyone else.

Why not?  In what manner are Johns dishonest?

> Using women for
> sex and paying them for it is a trade.  In that regard, one has to
> consider for oneself if the trade is moral enough to meet ones moral
> standards.

A man who pays for a dinner date because he's afraid she'll
dump him because he's "cheap" is being dishonest.  A woman
who refuses to consider sleeping with "cheap" guys but
says that she is not trading sexual favors in return
for money is being dishonest.

> > Many women have found the notion that men are
> > giving them lines to get them into bed disgusting.
>
> That's very true.  Today, most women don't fall for that shit; they
> either want sex or they don't.

They not only fall for that shit, they settle for dating
guys like me because the supply of men with money
and/or BS is so low.

If the women wanted sex with hot men, they could have it just
like that.  But they wouldn't get relationships necessarily
or free meals.  That's the caveat.

> > Yet, a man who never sees prostitutes and has sexual
> > needs he can only fulfill by saying what women want
> > to hear has a strong motivation to be less than honest.
>
> Ohmygod!  :-)  :-)  You seem to be suggesting that women should put
up
> with immorality "A" or immorality "B" and that
"B" is less offensive.

Sure.  Why is this so shocking?

If a woman is using her sexuality to get better behaviour from
men and free goodies, why is it so shocking to hear that
he's motivated by sex to lie?  If you have a dog that
does a certain trick for treats, is it bad that the dog
doesn't just do a trick because he feels like it?  The trainer
is clearly trying to motivate the dog to do something the
dog doesn't ordinarily do.  Of course the dog is less
than sincere.

> :-)  The truth is that women need not put up with shit of any sort.

Yeah, and they could buy their own friggin' dinners too, remember?
But they do put up with the shit because some primal needs
coerces them to.

> They need not marry a pig who thinks women are objects,

They can marry a BSer or a wimp instead.  Good luck to 'em.

> and they need
> not marry liars, and if they DO marry liars, by mistaking them for
> moral beings, divorce is avialable.

All the reason why so many such women had to settle for me:
The guys who really were good looking and had money didn't
want to get divorced by such a woman so her dance
card wasn't full...

> > "Tell me lies.  Tell me sweet little lies..."
>
> Wasn't that song written in the 50s?  :-)  Today women don't need
liars
> or whoremongers.  They simply have other alternatives.

Yeah, they can instead become spinsters and wait for German
style healthcare.  Good luck to 'em. :-)

>  As far as "normal human interaction" goes, prostitution has
> > > been pretty "normal" throughout history, as normal
as warfare
> > > and exploration and urbanization and any other sort of event
> > > that disrupts the availability of women. Whenever the supply of
> > > women becomes insufficient to allow men to obtain sex through
> > > the mutual attraction channel, men tend to compensate by paying
> > > women to have sex with them.
>
> Well, it appears to me that men have NEEDS and women must have the
> ABILITIES men want.  :-)

Sure.  Young attractive women especially.

> However, each woman also has her own moral
> code, Mark, and women with a high moral code look for men with an
> equally high one.
> (edit)

What moral code is there that governs using the "ability" to
have sex to score free meals and go into denial about
the reason?

> > >> If you think men value all that mutual affection stuff so much
> > > they will put their need for sex on hold when the mutual
affection
> > > thing isn't happening, then you don't know much about men.
> > > A few men will do that, but not all men.
>
> Well, a few good men is really all a woman needs, no?  I mean most
> women aren't into fucking the 7th fleet.  :-)

In some ways, this is a weakness for the women.

I know women who play the meal ho' game very well and are
miserable and feel used (your word above) by men who
said what it took to get into the sack with them.

A man who goes out with a woman who scored a free meal off
of him loses a free meal. A woman loses a lot more for
every date she goes on that doesn't turn out as she
expected.  In a way, I think the men really are the
lucky ones.

> That's my point, women
> can choose to marry men who ARE faithful and not whoremongers, or
they
> can remain single, or do some serial marriages if Mr. Right hasn't
come
> along yet.

And where's the morality to marrying some guy she doesn't love?
A prostitute is looking quite honorable by comparison...

> I mean, women today are divorcing men who don't do their
> share of the unpaid work or find solace in extramarital sexual
> stimulation.

Er, once again: morality?  A single man paying for a prostitute
versus you cheering on women cheating on their husbands for
daring to not wash dishes after he's worked 60 hours that week
or the woman marrying guys she doesn't love just to burn time.

FYI: Prostitutes are not whores.  They don't sell sex and
pretend otherwise.  It's people who sell out their claimed values
that are whores.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/28/05 8:46:45 PM ---