Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You made some excellent points, but you are NOT going to convince women in general that dating for men is anything more difficult than falling off a log. "Just the cost of doing business". Good God Almighty.
I am NOT the one who asked if money spent on dates was part of the 'cost of doing business.' My post was in response to someone else's question. I'm also not complaining about the cost of dating and, personally, choose dinner dates for almost all of my dates and pick up the tab every single time. I don't know why I'm being perceived as viewing dating through the lens of a transaction -- that's not my vantage point at all.
All I was saying was that the cost of dating can add up if you're going out often enough and averaging $50+ per date (which, here in Boston, and in other cities is nothing for dinner for two people).
No its not. Discretion is chicken **** way to go through life. In case you failed to understand my post, what I tell guys, is to simply be honest. If I have a date with another female tomorrow night, and someone else asks me out, I will tell them, sorry but I already have a date setup. That's not childish, that is being honest and direct. Try it.
If a man is a worthy companion in a well-adjusted woman's life, she'll already like him. There would be no need for such game-playing. Smart, emotionally healthy women know quality men when they find them and would respond to such discussion by writing a man off as ill-mannered and ill-bred, the kind of guy who would also talk about his salary with his coworkers, discuss his sexual exploits with his buddies as though he were still in 10th grade, and bring up religion and politics during family gatherings. In other words, an insecure braggart with a chip on his shoulder, out to prove to the world that he's something he's really not--which is a gentleman who is accomplished in his own right and not a man who gets his sense of self-worth from the number of similarly weak-minded, insecure women he can manipulate into dating him.
If a man is a worthy companion in a well-adjusted woman's life, she'll already like him. There would be no need for such game-playing. Smart, emotionally healthy women know quality men when they find them and would respond to such discussion by writing a man off as ill-mannered and ill-bred, the kind of guy who would also talk about his salary with his coworkers, discuss his sexual exploits with his buddies as though he were still in 10th grade, and bring up religion and politics during family gatherings. In other words, an insecure braggart with a chip on his shoulder, out to prove to the world that he's something he's really not--which is a gentleman who is accomplished in his own right and not a man who gets his sense of self-worth from the number of women he can manipulate into dating him.
Its really not that, none of those examples are close to what I'm talking about. Its about being direct and honest. If anyone asks me if I want to hang out tomorrow night, and I already have plans for a date, I'm going to tell them just that. The fact that it will cause the woman asking, to find me even more attractive, is only an added benefit. No reason to talk about NAWALT concepts like well adjusted, emotionally healthy and all that other noise. All women find men with options attractive. All women find men who are good in bed (through experience) attractive. All women despise men who have no options. All women despise men who are doormats and virgins. If there is a rare exception out there, it only supports the rule. It certainly has nothing to do with "quality" of a person. But nice try.
In contrast to the discussion of the past few pages, I hasten to add that often dismissal is issued after the relationship has already become sexual, after the two partners have spent multiple nights at each others' houses, after there is no longer a calculated exchange of he-bought-dinner but she-bought-lunch.
It's true that there is an aspect of investment when initiating a relationship - time, emotion, money. Often one party invests more than the other, and the less-invested party wields more "power" in the sense of having more maneuvering-room and less injury if the relationship ends. I agree that this ending is most often issued by the woman, not by the man. But I disagree that the man necessarily spends more money or loses more time.
In one curious escapade, my then-date and I had coffee. Our second date was an outing to a museum somewhere. Our third date was dinner - for which she paid for us both. Then came my dismissal. In purely pecuniary terms, I netted a profit. But I was also the one who was more emotionally invested.
I'm hesitant to endorse the idea that a man is "saddled with costs" that are unremunerated and uncompensated, that he's duped by a conniving female looking for a free ride. I do however quite agree, from personal experience, that it happens uncannily often that a budding relationship unfolds with asymmetry of emotional investment, that it's the man who is more invested (even if the woman happens to bear an equal share - or more! - of the financial cost) and who is blindsided by the sudden collapse.
She probably dumped you because she got tired of lugging around her dictionary.
Its really not that, none of those examples are close to what I'm talking about. Its about being direct and honest. If anyone asks me if I want to hang out tomorrow night, and I already have plans for a date, I'm going to tell them just that. The fact that it will cause the woman asking, to find me even more attractive, is only an added benefit.
You miss the point. A well-adjusted woman will NOT find you more attractive because of that. She will find you repugnant and cheap. She certainly wouldn't put any further effort into you. Perhaps you're saying you'd rather not be with women who have self-esteem and emotional stability?
A wise person would not welcome intrusive questions. "Saturday is not good for me" is all one needs to say. Prying is considered as rude as discussing other love interests with a current one, bless your heart.
If there is a rare exception out there, it only supports the rule.
Ah, the "exception making the rule" BS.
Yup, as a woman, I like a man who has options. However, if a man tells me "nope, can't see you tomorrow, I'm going on a date with someone else", it absolutely does not increase his attractiveness to me. If someone wants to "play the field", they can feel free to do so without me.
Yup, as a woman, I like a man who has options. However, if a man tells me "nope, can't see you tomorrow, I'm going on a date with someone else", it absolutely does not increase his attractiveness to me. If someone wants to "play the field", they can feel free to do so without me.
Pretty much! Best part is when you ghost on a knucklehead like that, chances are fair to middlin' that you'll hear from him again because he'll notice that you don't seem to miss his precious behind.
Pretty much! Best part is when you ghost on a knucklehead like that, chances are fair to middlin' that you'll hear from him again because he'll notice that you don't seem to miss his precious behind.
Without a doubt. In which case I just pat them on the head and tell them to go back to the sandbox.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
