Women Are Such Connivers Taking Advantage Of Men: Women Admit To Dating For Free Meals (older, percentage)

[desertdetroiter]

Originally Posted by PriscillaVanilla

I'm in the Dallas area too. And men are just as conscious of income that a woman earns, as the woman is conscious of the man's income. Men are possibly even worse about it. The first question men ask typically on a date is "what's your salary?"

Lol...Dallas, home of the 35k a year millionaire.

[Frostnip]

And I suppose men never take financial advantage of women?

[Emeraldmaiden]

Originally Posted by tinytrump

Hahaha. And men want to get sex for a burger

I had one, first date, guy wanted sex for a $.99 Coke.



He didn't get sex OR a second date.

[RowingFiend]

Well, we should have known this would happen after Eve doomed mankind by eating of the forbidden fruit.

[Huckleberry3911948]

I am so glad there is something I can afford that women like -I rejoice whenever I find something Like that
Making her happy is a great shot in the arm to me she works so hard

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by TheGoodTheBadTheUgly

Maybe I should start going to McDonalds more often at least when I strike out it won’t hurt my wallet!

https://www.studyfinds.org/foodie-ca...for-free-meal/

What does this have to do with politics? Shouldn't this go in the relationships section?

Although I do find this part of the article interesting

Among both groups of women, those who admitted to foodie calls scored higher in the “dark triad” (narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism) of personality traits. Women who expressed belief in more traditional gender roles were also more likely to engage in a foodie call.

Not proof that lack of skepticism of tradition and convention is "dark triad" (or even more specifically, disdain for those who deviate from conventional standards of 'normal' or 'respect-worthy' to even a moderate degree is a "dark triad") , but it still doesn't surprise me that people who firmly insist that a person meet standard criteria and notions of a "normal person" tend to be at least apologists for dark triad behavior, if not a dark triad type themselves.

[Phil75230]

On the broader topic of gullibility or naivete in general; particularly how people react to them, implying they somehow deserved what they get....

Gullible, naive people deserve dignity and help - not ridicule and contempt. This includes even people who are astonishingly naive or gullible.

The last two are to be reserved ONLY for use against people who clearly have malicious attitudes toward others when that other clearly did not do anything wrong at all, let alone purposefully. Merely being gullible or naive is not a conscious deliberate effort to demean or hurt others, and so is an inappropriate attitude to have toward them.

There's a number of reasons people can be easily duped:

*No meaningful opportunity to learn better, regardless of what kept them from learning
*Brain structure differences that prevent proper processing of social information
*Certain cognitive or emotional biases or filters that keeps them from processing social information correctly.

This is the crux of the matter of responsibility, knowledge, and power/control: How can you challenge something if you don't know how to challenge something? How can you know how to think straight when you are unable to think straight (for whatever reason)? So for, it looks to be unfair to blame the person for being easily duped when they don't know how to spot trickery or manipulation.

This is beside the fact that scorn and disrespect don't supply actual useful information about how to overcome the error. Actual error correction is discussing respectfully (not merely showing) them the error of their ways and giving them a chance to put the new information into practices so they can be comfortable in the new paradigm - or put more simply, so they can learn what truthfulness 'feels like'.

In fact, scorn and disrespect is much more likely to make the problem worse - in both severity and duration. It further discourages such people from ever thinking they can ever learn to navigate the social world (not just dating and relationships), and creates further emotional pain, and yet an additional emotional barrier which they have to overcome in order to be in the proper frame of mind to correctly asses the situation or receive proper information about the situation.

So instead of scorning and disparaging the gullible, a wiser move is to see them as an underrated person who, with proper training and without exploitation, can indeed be a great asset to society. And that is what makes disparaging such people a very foolish thing to do - even if it does release frustration or provide pleasure in the short run.

[Steve McDonald]

Originally Posted by texan2yankee

How do you know if a "person is going in the same direction and has similar values to you" if you never go out on dates, have multiple conversations, and observe their behavior? I agree that shared values are paramount, but values aren't superficially or quickly apparent.

Every relationship I've had with a woman, has been with someone I got to know from common interests or activities. We had become well-acquainted with each other, before any romance entered into it. And when that interest developed, there was no difficulty or awkwardness about engaging each other, because we were both aware of it and just naturally started doing things and going places together. That's probably the way men and women got together in ancient times, before the artificial construct of dating was invented.

[boneyard1962]

[quote=Steve McDonald;55492809]Every relationship I've had with a woman, has been with someone I got to know from common interests or activities. We had become well-acquainted with each other, before any romance entered into it. And when that interest developed, there was no difficulty or awkwardness about engaging each other, because we were both aware of it and just naturally started doing things and going places together. That's probably the way men and women got together in ancient times, before the artificial construct of dating was invented.[/QUOTE]

What?
In ancient times women were pretty much property. Daughters were traded or married off to unite families.

There was never equal footing between men and women in times past. Even countries that were ruled by queens, the women were treated no better than countries ruled by kings.

[MLSFan]

Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden

I had one, first date, guy wanted sex for a $.99 Coke.



He didn't get sex OR a second date.

If only he included fries with the coke?