bluesmama wrote:
> greg1199{at}yahoo.com wrote:

> > > What really makes me laugh were the gals who had the nerve
> > > to say they were "liberal" politically AND wanted a tall
> professional
> > > (presumably to buy them drinks)  Good F'ing luck!
> >
> > Yeah, that gives me a chuckle as well.  Like the woman pretends to
be
> a
> > modern, liberal, corporate goddess, then tells me she's "old
> fashioned"
> > as we approach the restaurant.
> > [...]
>
> No one except the woman in question knows her motivations, but it
just
> occurred to me - what if she was using the first date to see what
this
> guy's limits were, as far as how far he was willing to compromise
> himself in order to (possibly)laid? Frankly, a guy I can walk all
over
> is not a guy I'd want to date twice, I prefer a man with a strong
sense
> of himself and some firm boundaries. It's hard to have any respect
for
> someone who, instead of being assertive (not aggressive, that would
> turn me off too, unless it was in the right situation, but let's not
go
> there right now) was a passive man. Generally, passive people take it
> and take it and then end up surprising everyone by blowing up and
> getting aggressive.

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?

That's pretty messed up.  It seems you don't want men to feel
they can trust your judgement.  This kind of makes sense
from the other discussions we had about women exploiting
bastard babies for fun and profit.

Based upon all of this, how can you imagine that men should
trust women in leadership roles?

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/23/05 4:02:26 PM ---