mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:

> bluesmama wrote:
>
>>cv wrote:
>
>
>>It might be more natural, but it seems more fair to me that the
>
> person
>
>>who initates the date pay, whether that is a man or a woman, and
>
> though
>
>>it doesn't happen as often (because women have been socialized to
>
> wait
>
>>for a man to ask
>
>
> This would be similar to men who are slobs and have their
> wives who work 50 hours a week outside of the home clean
> up after them argue:
>
> "Hey!  Us men have been socialized to have you gals clean up
> after us!  I'm a gentleman!  Burp!"
>
> In other words, it's doesn't take much "socialization" for people
> to realize they enjoy being mooches, not taking emotional
> risks, and dropping their socks on the floor for others
> to clean up.   If all of your friends jumped off bridges
> and started smoking would you...?

Hey hey hey! Hang on there people. I think this
asker pays idea is an absolute winner. Think
about it. Throughout the entire western world
(and most of the rest now) the capitlaist filth
*ask* us to buy their products. Yeah! Fine - so
they can pay since *they are asker...* Howzat.

D.


> As everyone knows, the "asker pays" rule is usually
> the exception rather than the rule  in most normal human situations.
> At work and with friends, it's usually understood that the inviter is
> usually
> just the organizer and the payment plans are seperate (either based
> upon the person paying last taking their turn or dutch.)  I think the
> "asker pays" nazis generally only appear on dates and business.
>
> Many people have argued that first dates often resemble a job
> interview.   I just had
> my wife hug me today unexpectantly (I was making scrapple sandwiches
> for her) and she
> asked me why I preferred foreign women to those in the states.  (She
> told me I was
> supposed to answer "I never looked at any other woman, ever!"  Doh!)
>
> Anyways, I think I now have one answer: women in the states tend to be
> less romantic.
> Yes, it can be argued that a first date is technically similar to a job
> interview, but
> it's so damn obvious here with the asker-pays nazis.  My brother
> (whom I disagree with on just about everything) is a manager who was
> trained
> to reject possible job applicants if the poor bastards happened to
> salt their food before tasting it on a dinner interview based upon the
> premise
> that the applicant was jumping to a conclusion the food wasn't salted.
>
> Sheesh!  Sounds like a lot of fun to eat dinner with him, eh?
>
> If I'm on a job interview, I would rather have it go like the dentist
> visit:
> Get it over with ASAP.  I don't enjoy people watching my every
> move for a possible mistake.
>
> By the same token, the asker-pays nazis drain out any fun on a date
> which is supposed to be about her providing "pleasurable company"
> to begin with.  I'm reminded of a man-show episode where
> the worst stripper was the gal who spent the whole time
> reminding the men about the rules and how much everything cost.
> Bleah!  Why bother?  If they need to be nitpicked, can't they get that
> from their wife? :-)
>
>
>>, for fear of appearing too "forward") women do ask men
>>out, and the women who are fair-minded pay, in that case.
>
>
> In all cases where I know of men being asked out (including
> myself), they've always offered to pay with no strings-attached
> or ulterior motives not only for his share of the date,
> but hers as well.
>
> In other words, men don't play 'dat game.
>
> Forget fairness for a moment: Not only did the best women I dated
> not only laugh at mistakes and faux-paus that would have driven
> an asker-pay nazi out the door in a matter of seconds, but they
> also often offered to pay (usually just for themselves) with no strings
> attached for the very unamerican reason that they CARED about
> me and didn't want me to feel taken advantage of.
>
> One of the things that made my head spin in such a way I couldn't
> come up with a response was when women on dates would
> argue they wanted the man to pay for a date so she would
> know he wasn't "cheap".  Well, what does that make her?
> I think I said just that and they didn't "get it".  They couldn't
> fathom that by their own standards of judging men, they
> were cowardly, stuck-up, and cheap themselves.
>
> Ironically, most were not feminists but just shallow and stupid
> going along with the crowd for whatever felt good.
> I guess that's another thing to tell my wife: I love her because
> she thinks.  I think she'll like that.   (Women dig it when
> you compliment their intelligence :-) :-) :-)
>
>
>>>>You want to go to Starbucks, insist on Starbucks. You made the
>>
>>date.
>>
>>>>You give up your choice (for whatever reason, not wanting to
>
> start
>
>>a
>>
>>>>confrontation, not wanting to appear "cheap", hoping
>
> agreeableness
>
>>will
>>
>>>>lead to getting laid later, whatever) then you have to live with
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>consequences.
>
>
> Good point.  For one thing, if they're on a formal dinner date, he
> should order for her.  Be a "control freak".  She ain't liberated
> so the rules of the 19th century apply for that instant:
>
> 1) He can decide what he likes and offer her a subset of that
> choice.  For example, if he's getting regular coffee at Starbucks,
> he can offer her a decaf.  If she says "Well, I want the
> ballbuster mocha!" then he can reply: "Oh, if that's
> what YOU'RE ordering, why don't you get one for me too!"
> Guess what?  Princess Di just got stuck with the bill.
>
> (sniff) I almost wish I was young and dating again.  Why didn't
> someone tell me about all of these head games in advance? :-)
>
> 2) If it's a formal dinner date, his servitude exists to help
> mark his territory.  She wants chivalry?!?!  OK then!!!
> Offer her your arm (not hand.)  Hold her chair for her
> (ESPECIALLY at a no-frills starbucks).  Talk about a cheap
> date!  He's almost at first base for the cost of a venti
> Coffee-of-the-Day.
> When it's over, offer to walk her home and get a peck on the cheek.
>
> This isn't just about being a dork (I'm good at that, granted.
> Ask the wife! :-)  but also about having a relationship that
> works.  If she's just a bit stupid and went along with the crowd,
> here's an opportunity for her to find romance and
> the benefits of chivalry without imposing on him too much.
>
> When I was less mature, I used this bit of social ambiguity on my own
> since
> I never said I was paying to watch these gals sweat it out when the
> check arrived.  Hey, I didn't SAY I was paying, did I?  After sweating
> through their stupid inquisition, I would derive great satisfaction
> from watching them squirm as they waited to see if I would
> "happily" pick up the check, slowly.... reach for their purse,
> and nastily calculate the tab out loud.  (Note: Much of these
> dates were through the personals or dating agencies where
> the silly asker pay rule didn't apply anyway!)
>
> Yes, it was fun and I felt like it was some pretty fun entertainment
> (and free too! :-) but here's the thing:
>
> At the end of the evening, I was alone.
>
> By the same token, I think a lot of women who "win" the asker
> pays game wind up with the following caveats:
>
> 1) They get stuck with the guys who read their signals and
> not necessarily the ones they want.  I refer to this as the
> power factor of dating people you like less than they
> like you.  The problem with that power is that you're
> stuck with someone you don't like a lot. :-)
>
> 2) Even if this woman got a guy to happily blow money on
> her wine, will she respect him in the morning?  I think it's
> clear that this woman used the above guy.  OK.  But
> come on!  Couldn't she just buy the lousy Sutter's Home
> they serve at these places for 5 bucks and enjoy it
> at home with her friends than milk some mark and
> waste her time?  What kind of sadistic bitch does that?
> (Ok, probably the same sadistic asshole I used to
> be sometimes... :-)
>
> Another thing about foreign women: They value their time
> and are actually offended if a man goes out with them
> and he's not serious about what she wants in the relationship.
> They would rather not go out and instead sit at home
> and read a book or learn art or practice the piano.
> One gal referred to American women as "party girls".
>
>
>>>>No one can take advantage of you unless you let them.
>>>
>>>The same reasoning can take all the bite out of hardpan's rules
>
> post,
>
>>yet
>>
>>>you found that to be one of the saddest things you'd ever read. Is
>
> it
>
>>>easier to understand and excuse women's manipulations than men's?
>
>
> In another thread where pregnant women are left standing uncomfortably
> on the bus, the logic "it's ok if you can get away with it" would
> seem to dictate that he's a chump if he helps women with
> packages or gives up his seat on the bus.  Hey, if you don't
> like doors slammed in your fact, make two trips!
>
>
>>Manipulation by either sex is understandable, but inexcusable.
>
>
> ?!?!?!?!?!
>
> [picture my head spinning.  Congratulations.  You're now
> equal to my wife!   It takes REAL BRAINS to confuse me!]
>
> HELLO!  You've been excusing game-playing meal-ho'ing nazi
> bitches the whole time now with your caveat empor (sp?) and
> other rationalizations.
>
>
>>The
>>reasoning "no one can take advantage of you unless you let them"
>
> speaks
>
>>to the individual's choice when presented with a situation in which
>>someone is trying to manipulate them.
>
>
> What if the person has a crush?  Or if they are trying to
> be a gentleman?
>
> Consider: I saw an old lady in the rain who forget her keys to
> get back into the apartment building this morning.  I pitied
> her and held the door open for her.  Now, technically,
> I shouldn't have done that.  I was a "sap".  Same thing with
> bending over to help a woman pick up packages: it's
> a perfect opportunity for her buddy, a pickpocket, to
> snarf my wallet (I know men who've had that happen!)
>
> What you're saying is: Men are suckers.  Agreed.  But then
> again, what would the world be like if they acted
> like women?   Would you be together with your husband
> if he played a waiting game with you and demanded
> a free meal?
>
>
>>The motivations of the
>>manipulator aren't addressed at all, so I don't see how your argument
>>has any merit.
>
>
> I think that's a non-sequitur.  In your world, if a man asks out a
> woman
> and he doesn't jump to offer to pay, you don't wonder whether
> he's maybe thinking she's liberated and would be offended or
> whether he thinks that it would be fair for her to help out
> since he took the burden of doing the organizing or that
> it's similar to going out with a co-worker.
>
> Your conclusion is that he's cheap or looking for only a hookup.
> You jump to conclusions when they suit you.  Maybe because
> you're "socialized" by a culture that's so incredibly materialistic
> and misandric or maybe because you're a woman and find
> the idea of true equality repulsive.  It doesn't matter.
>
> I'm happy  things worked out for you (and me) but there are people's
> lives at stake here.  I pity them.  People deserve to be treated
> better.
>
> regards,
> Mark Sobolewski
>


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/19/05 11:59:02 PM ---