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...?

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} 3/18/05 4:59:50 PM ---