OpenBook Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 I am reminded of a song, When a man loves a woman Can't keep his mind on nothing else He'll trade the world for the good thing he's found. UNLESS he is stingy. Petty people have petty minds and petty feelings. Nothing wll make me change my mind about this. Like - Tom Petty? "And I won't - back - down." Ha ha. But I think you're absolutely right, Marlena. Men can talk all they want... but when they're in love with a woman, all their rules and requirements go right out the window.
marlena Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Men can talk all they want... but when they're in love with a woman, all their rules and requirements go right out the window. Absolutely. And vice versa, of course. Love knows no laws, no rules,no musts. Even the most resistant and inflexible throw caution to the wind when the heart starts to do somersaults.
marlena Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Collector, Thanks for the lyrics! You are right, it is bad advice for anyone to love like that, man or woman, but I still love the song. M
Author Walk Posted September 21, 2008 Author Posted September 21, 2008 Just to clarify, we weren't talking about "serial" daters specifically. Just generalized dating structures in normal situations. Not online dating either. The key words being INTO ME as in CRAZY ABOUT ME!! Men can talk all they want... but when they're in love with a woman, all their rules and requirements go right out the window. So you two are saying that on 1 or 2 dates, a man will be 'in love' and get all starry eyed? That's... hmm.. that's very unrealistic. I mean, that might happen in romance novels, or movies, but in real life that translates into something a little creepy. In fact, I'd be extremely worried if a man went head over heels after 1 date with me. He doesn't even know me, knows barely anything about me. Even if I'd been an acquaintence of his for a year or so, he still wouldn't know that much about me on a personal level. So for him to be "in love" with me after a couple of dates would mean he's really just "in lust" with me. And we all know men will do anything when the little head is thinking. The only way I would feel comfortable with some guy being in love with me after 1 or 2 dates is if he'd already been a close friend of mine for at the least numerous months. But at that point, we would've already been out several times as friends and not as dates and would have split tabs on who pays for what. Since we aren't "courting" as Almost Famous calls it, and it wouldn't techincally be a "first date", since we'd already been hanging out for months by that point. Love after 1 date. The ultimate chick flick.
marlena Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Walk, maybe I didn't express myself very well. I meant chemistry,a strong attraction on all levels. That can and does happen in one or two dates. M
Author Walk Posted September 21, 2008 Author Posted September 21, 2008 Walk, maybe I didn't express myself very well. I meant chemistry,a strong attraction on all levels. That can and does happen in one or two dates. M Yeah, it's called lust. Correct me if I misunderstand, but you're saying that a man who feels the chemistry and attraction will do whatever will please you the most, and that translates into him paying. So what you want is for him to pay. There's more under that notion then you expressed. There has to be. What exactly does his paying prove to you? He's generous to you because he's immediately getting something he currently wants. But it doesn't show he's generous after he's gotten what he's wanted. Just link it up for me... maybe I'm dense, maybe i just want to hear you say it. But please explain to me how his paying equals a the type of partner you would ideally want for a long term relationship. My H will blow a wad off cash on an end cap item that caught his eye. That's all you could be to some of these men. So why does his paying equal he's generous? What exactly proves to you that paying means something special? (leave out all the rest of the stuff, like men who won't pay, men who go dutch, etc.. I just want to hear how paying proves generous person. Keep it simple for me. )
Mahatma Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 I am an 18 year old male and I think guys should ALWAYS pay for the first date, and the girl should always be willing to. After the first few dates, the girl should be willing to chip in more. I've never been one to go for girls who want to be pampered.
marlena Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Yeah, it's called lust Yes, it could be lust,a strong desire, a feeling that you just have to be with that person. but you're saying that a man who feels the chemistry and attraction will do whatever will please you the most, and that translates into him paying. So what you want is for him to pay. Yes, he will feel the need to please me and no it does not translate into my wanting him to pay. I can buy my own drinks and meals, for heaven's sake. He himself will feel that he wants to pay especially if he did the asking. Remember these are the early stages of courting,wooing or whatever the hell it's called. There has to be. What exactly does his paying prove to you? He's generous to you because he's immediately getting something he currently wants. No, it proves that he is generous and a gentleman and a man to be respected and taken seriously. More importantly it proves he is not stingy. Stingy people are mean people and can not feel the joy of giving. If one does not know how to give, one does not know how to receive. Both are necessary in order for a relationship to flourish and thrive. Like I've said before,to me generosity is an admirable trait . It shows a largeness of spirit.
Author Walk Posted September 21, 2008 Author Posted September 21, 2008 You or I would look at something like this and immediately run down a series of thoughts like the following: To me, and I suspect to you as well, this is just the normal type of thought process I try to bring to everything and I try to modify my ideas and ideals accordingly. Instead of seeing it as an exercise in examining themselves and adjusting their thinking, they see it as a threat or an attack on them or their beliefs and react with hostility, anger, resentment, or a belief that they don't need to justify or prove the validity of their points. I hear you, and I appreciate what you are trying to do, but to a certain extent you are never going to get most people to go there with you. Holy crap. How'd you get in my head! It's human nature to become defensive when we feel the face we present the world is being attacked. Actually though, this thread really helped me analyze how I've been viewing certain aspects in my life. So even though this thread may not have found much of a bridge in understanding, it was enlightening to me.
norajane Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 A man with a less dominant approach might simply say " do you fancy meeting up for something to eat?" in the way that any of your friends might. When a friend makes that suggestion to me, I don't assume that they're offering to pay. Likewise I don't make the assumption, if it's a man who might be interested in me romantically - but isn't necessarily so, that he's offering to treat. Meeting up is different than someone asking to take you out on a date. Like I said, I've never done online dating, so all my dates are people who have met me or known me in some aspect of my life. In many cases, they may be people I've gone out with in groups, or even one-on-one for an activity we both enjoy. Meeting up that way is not dating, IMO, and the costs are shared. But when a guy says, "I'd like to take you out for coffee/dinner/whatev, then that is a date, and yes, the implication is he is treating me.
Author Walk Posted September 21, 2008 Author Posted September 21, 2008 Yes, it could be lust,a strong desire, a feeling that you just have to be with that person. Yes, he will feel the need to please me and no it does not translate into my wanting him to pay. I can buy my own drinks and meals, for heaven's sake. He himself will feel that he wants to pay especially if he did the asking. Remember these are the early stages of courting,wooing or whatever the hell it's called. On the most base level, you do want him to pay. Otherwise, you would pay for your meal/drinks. So what deeper level does it show he wants to please you? Is it because it implies he's looking after your welfare by providing food or entertainment? Why does it make you happy? No, it proves that he is generous and a gentleman and a man to be respected and taken seriously. More importantly it proves he is not stingy. Stingy people are mean people and can not feel the joy of giving. If one does not know how to give, one does not know how to receive. Both are necessary in order for a relationship to flourish and thrive. Like I've said before,to me generosity is an admirable trait . It shows a largeness of spirit. To me, it proves he's willing to pay because he knows he won't get a second date if he doesn't. He'll pay to get you to come back for a second date. How does it prove he's generous? You attribute motives to what could potentially be a simple case of he feels it's an action he has to do in order to look like a man to the world. The same as if society said he had to buy a house in order to be considered sucessful, so he buys a house. Or wearing a suit to work in order to present the image of a sucessful businessman. Its something that could be for show only. You said it proves he's generous and a gentleman, but I don't see how you linked his action to his motive. That's all I'm really asking. How do you know his motive is selfless and altrusic? I agree that if his motive is selfless then that is an amazing trait in a person. I'm just not sure how you link the action and motive. The consensus on here is that if a man wants a second date, he has to pay. So if a man is willing to play by societies rules, then he will pay. It doesn't necessarily mean he's generous in other ways, or past what he believes is immediately expected from him. For instance.. I dated one man who paid for dinners. (I've actually known several men like this) After we got into a relationship, he refused to help with household chores. No matter how tired I was, or anything. He would always make a big show of paying when we went out... but at home he was stingy and selfish. Its reasons like this that I don't understand how paying actually shows he's generous and a gentleman. Paying is expected. And it wouldn't take long for a man to realize that if he doesn't pay, then he won't get second dates.
Taramere Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 G'ahh -- I can't wrap my brain around this!! It's like a labyrinth, or a Fun House of mirrors. Good luck with that, because a few hours later I can't make sense of it. Punctuation be damned! I know that some men out there will go all out to make a woman they care about feel adored. If it's appreciated, then that's great. Others....who knows. They might be a bit more shy. I'm not convinced that all men are wired to get out there and confidently pursue a woman so that he can make her his. But they're repeatedly told that that's how they are or should be. We should take a vote on how many women on LS approve of the notion of men attending seminars, doing courses and practical exercises to improve their pick up techniques. Because for a shy man - which lots and lots of men are - that might be what's needed to get going on the dating game, and to meet with female approval. I'm just curious about what other women think on this. I know that the PUA thing often gets slammed here, and I've slammed it myself. Reading up more about it lately, and considering the similarities between what women on LS indicate (through their choices rather than their words) and what the PUA advocate men should be do seem to often bear striking similarities. We're looking, after all, for men who can carry off chivalry in a cool, up to date way, know how to be men, aren't afraid to pursue.....all the things that PUA courses teach. By the way - Walk, this is a good thread. I think you're responsible for that for the carefully considered way in which you opened the subject. Thanks for hosting it.
scratch Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Depending on the circumstances, I think I could find it quite limiting. For instance, if there was something I really wanted to do that carried a price tag higher than the usual date (eg a concert I wanted to see or a city I wanted to visit) then going by the philosophy that the man always selects the date and pays for it, I'd have to go on that activity by myself or with other friends rather than with the guy. Your use of the pronoun "it" in the first sentence indicated a misinterpretation of my point. Per my wording, "it" should refer to whether you'd look askance at a man who took you on inexpensive dates. Per your interpretation, "it" refers to a man who would not agree to your offer of a date. I think there is something more visceral here. My suspicion is that you, and most women, feel that it's not fair for you to take him on expensive dates while he is taking you on inexpensive ones. Unfortunately, something doesn't sit right with your feminine/feminist psyche with taking a man to a concert because, well, gee, you're a girl and the big man should pay. You have identified yourself as someone prone to engage in the double-standard. This carefully; is my dissection of the subtext off base? I found it interesting to read the responses to scratch's post. They were mainly approving, but when scratch wrote a guide a while back for women on "getting and keeping a man" the response was less welcoming. And that's part of what interests me about all this. The whole dominant/passive thing. "Ooooh. That's nice! Quite right. A man should be a man! But hang on....you mean to say you want to choose every venue for every date? Take decisions on matters without my input? My role is simply to say yes to everything? I should play that game? Woah....." Exactly right, madam. It's almost like I think about what I'm doing when I decide to post every two months or so, isn't it? Obviously, the women here are myopic about it and can be led around by the nose by clever semantics, but Vonerik and Collector aren't going to pierce their warm cloak of self-congratulation. There is limited use debating it as an intellectual exercise, but is easily settled when you link the benefits to the consequences.
marlena Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Is it because it implies he's looking after your welfare by providing food or entertainment? Why does it make you happy? No, I am quite capable of looking after my own welfare as I have been doing all my life. I can assure you. It's simple. He asks me out the first time. He pays. Second time, I could pick up the bill. To me, it proves he's willing to pay because he knows he won't get a second date if he doesn't. He'll pay to get you to come back for a second date. That's rather cynical. Pehaps he feels like I do that whoever asks pays. That simple. Maybe just maybe he doesn't mind paying. The same as if society said he had to buy a house in order to be considered sucessful, so he buys a house. Or wearing a suit to work in order to present the image of a sucessful businessman. Perhaps. We are all "condtioned" to an extent, others more, others less. You said it proves he's generous and a gentleman, but I don't see how you linked his action to his motive. Wanting to make a favourable impression is not a bad motive in my book.
Trialbyfire Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 As for the dominant/passive issue, I don't personally have a problem with it. If the man makes good decisions, that's fine with me. If he makes crappy decisions, I get to step in with input or if this is a weakness for him, I'll drive. To throw in the gauntlet of the condescending "double standard" term, I do expect to drive to my strengths, as he should also. The difficulty is that some men aren't able to admit to their weaknesses, insisting on driving at all times, even though we're headed for a cliff. Relationships and dating don't need to be cast in stone, the extremist, traditional way or perfect equality. It's not a double-standard to want something in the middle with permeatations of both. Do what works for you and more importantly, makes you happy.
The Collector Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Marlena, I think you have side-stepped the central gist of Taramere's post - that going along with societies convention of the man paying does not prove any generosity. When the veiled or transparent threat is of no second date if you don't pay, that's not giving, that's compliance. It's like a man wanting a woman who is faithful, and thinking she has proved this test if she doesn't get another man's phone number during the date.
Author Walk Posted September 21, 2008 Author Posted September 21, 2008 That's rather cynical. Pehaps he feels like I do that whoever asks pays. That simple. Maybe just maybe he doesn't mind paying. Perhaps. We are all "condtioned" to an extent, others more, others less. Wanting to make a favourable impression is not a bad motive in my book. Right. What you wrote makes sense. But I guess I wasn't being very clear in what I was asking. I realize you make more then enough to provide very well for yourself but how does him paying make you feel special? And how does it prove he's generous? I realize that saying he may be conditioned to pay may come off as cynical, but I believe that your idea of having him pay proves generousity is.... rose colored. I am wondering how you got got to the conclusion that x = y.
Taramere Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Your use of the pronoun "it" in the first sentence indicated a misinterpretation of my point. Per my wording, "it" should refer to whether you'd look askance at a man who took you on inexpensive dates. Per your interpretation, "it" refers to a man who would not agree to your offer of a date. My interpretation would be a man who always selected the date and paid for it. In which case it would be limiting from the woman's perspective because she wouldn't have much choice and input. But I realise now that your reference is to the very early stages of dating. As far as "would it make me look askance at the man" goes, no. It would make no difference. I think there is something more visceral here. My suspicion is that you, and most women, feel that it's not fair for you to take him on expensive dates while he is taking you on inexpensive ones. Unfortunately, something doesn't sit right with your feminine/feminist psyche with taking a man to a concert because, well, gee, you're a girl and the big man should pay. In this situation it's less a case of what's fair and what's fair - more a case of what I want to do, and what I will enjoy doing. If I'm happy with it, then it doesn't matter if a third party determines a situation as being unfair to me. You have identified yourself as someone prone to engage in the double-standard. This carefully; is my dissection of the subtext off base? I think it is, to some extent. Double standards? I have absolutely no doubt that I often express double standards in my efforts to think about and discuss issues like this . Analysing these things in depth is partly about checking myself for double standards re male rights and interests versus female ones.
The Collector Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Marlena, I think you have side-stepped the central gist of Taramere's post Sorry, that's should be 'Walk's post.' Carry on.
Author Walk Posted September 21, 2008 Author Posted September 21, 2008 We should take a vote on how many women on LS approve of the notion of men attending seminars, doing courses and practical exercises to improve their pick up techniques. Because for a shy man - which lots and lots of men are - that might be what's needed to get going on the dating game, and to meet with female approval. I think in theory I'm for the classes. At its essence is the idea of self improvement. In practice, it might be slightly different depending on what the man did with those courses. Some guys could really take advantage of people if they wanted to, and teaching them best methods to woo women could be bad. But then again, if a person is morally corrupt enough to do that, then they'd do that no matter what. Mostly, I think if the courses were done well then it could help both genders a great deal. I'd hope they'd throw in some conflict management, social skills, ability to listen effectively, basic classes on how to be a better more confident person... and not so much of a "how to be a sneaky womanizer" type topic. By the way - Walk, this is a good thread. I think you're responsible for that for the carefully considered way in which you opened the subject. Thanks for hosting it. Thank you.
marlena Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 that going along with societies convention of the man paying does not prove any generosity. When the veiled or transparent threat is of no second date if you don't pay, that's not giving, that's compliance. It may not prove it but it is a good first sign. And I am not usually wrong about this although of course I could be. On the other hand, not paying on a first date when you have asked the girl smacks of stinginess. To me it is unimportant whether or not it is a social convention. It most likely is but I simply don't care. To me, it is plain courtesy. He asked me out, he pays. The next time, I pick up the bill or buy him a nice present some time later if we continue to see eachother. I don't see at as a threat. I would just be so turned off that I would lose interest. Much like if he were flirting with someone else during our date or incessantly talking on his cell phone or using bad language. I do not see this as having anything to do with dominance/submission since I, too, would spend money on him. Personally, much ado about nothing I say.
Trialbyfire Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 This once again, ties into universal attractiveness. Why must anyone be universally attractive? If what they believe in and follow up in actions, doesn't connect with everyone or resonate as attractive to everyone, who cares?
johan Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 TBF, if we ever go out, then I expect you to pay and to take me to a nice place. I also would hope that you would think to bring me flowers.
Trialbyfire Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 If you'll let me put a nice big lily behind your ear, we might find some middle-ground.
Author Walk Posted September 21, 2008 Author Posted September 21, 2008 It may not prove it but it is a good first sign. And I am not usually wrong about this although of course I could be. On the other hand, not paying on a first date when you have asked the girl smacks of stinginess. To me it is unimportant whether or not it is a social convention. It most likely is but I simply don't care. To me, it is plain courtesy. He asked me out, he pays. The next time, I pick up the bill or buy him a nice present some time later if we continue to see eachother. I don't see at as a threat. I would just be so turned off that I would lose interest. Much like if he were flirting with someone else during our date or incessantly talking on his cell phone or using bad language. I do not see this as having anything to do with dominance/submission since I, too, would spend money on him.. But a great deal of posters weren't discussing alternating payment of the dates (TBF did, but not some of the others) What several women posted was the concept that men pay for all the beginning dates. Not just the first one. And one said a man would pay until bf/gf status was established. Plus, I believe you stated that you do ask men out too, correct? At that point, it lends credence to the fact that you aren't solely on the receiving end. From my view point, the burden of paying and asking is more or less equally distributed between you and the men you date. Some posters stated they would never ask a man out until after a relationship was established (however long that took). Yet still kept the argument that whoever asked should pay. You may have stated this in another post, but when you ask friends out do you pay? Is this a consistent practice in your life, or does it only apply to dating situations?
Recommended Posts