DISCOVER HOW SMART, STRONG & SUCCESSFUL WOMEN (THAT'S YOU!) CAN FINALLY Find Your Man
DISCOVER HOW
SMART WOMEN LIKE YOU CAN
FINALLY Find Your Man
Take this short quiz
to discover what you need to do now.
Take this short quiz now
When you talk about dates, you usually talk about meeting a man for dinner, him planning the date, etc. I’d like to go on that kind of date, but what I usually get is invitations for drinks, a popular phrase is ‘something casual’. I said yes to several of those and they were mostly disappointing. They either invite me to go to a pub, or have no idea where to go at all and leave it to me to decide on the place. After a drink or two, if it’s going alright, I suggest having dinner – they never do – but it’s usually about 8pm and I’m hungry, and again, they have no idea where to go.
I thought it was the fault of dating apps – that’s what I’ve been using to meet men, so I signed up for e-Harmony, still the same result. So my question to you is, what should I do in this situation? I realize I hate drinks dates. I don’t think it gives anyone a chance to impress anyone; I’m not going to wear heels to go to a pub.
A couple of people suggested meeting for a coffee. If they don’t know me well enough to risk spending two hours having dinner with me, we could chat a bit more, or talk on the phone. I personally don’t mind spending a couple of hours getting to know a new person over dinner; I do not see anything threatening in a dinner date situation.
Am I missing something? I tried telling one guy I was talking to online that I don’t know what to make of drinks dates… he never wrote back. How do I explain to people that I don’t think drinks are a good idea without putting them off? Or do I meet them, have one drink and then say ‘sorry, I have to go’? I would really appreciate your help with this!
Katerina
I feel for you, Katerina.
But the greatest gift I can give you right now is not sympathy; it’s actually teaching you to understand the male point of view regarding your common situation.
Have you ever talked with a man about his dating experience? Have you ever read the male commenters on this blog? It’s not that you’re “wrong” to hope to have dinner on a first date; it’s that you seem to have no empathy for the male dating experience. It’s not even that you’re callous about it; it’s that you’re clueless — the same way men are clueless when they ask you out on a date without a plan. So…
If you’re a quality man with an average profile, you write 100 generic emails to the 100 most attractive women on the website.
If you’re lucky, 20 will write back.
If you’re unlucky, 10 will write back.
If you’re delusional about the kind of women you can get online, 0 will write back.
Now, when this man finally does get responses, they’re not unlike the responses you get from men: short, awkward, stilted, poorly spelled, incurious.
Out of those 20 emails, only 10 may be worth a second response.
Of those 10 emails, only 5 might get to the point of exchanging phone numbers.
Yes, you were missing something: an understanding of the male dating experience.
Of those 5, only 3 might end up on a first date.
Of those 3 first dates, one might be in a bad place in life, one might not find him attractive, and one might have lied about her weight and age. So…
How do you feel if you’re this man?
How do you feel about dating?
How do you feel about yourself?
How do you feel about women?
Probably pretty shitty.
Make no mistake: most men expend a LOT of energy for very little reward.
But it doesn’t end there.
It seems to men that no matter what they do, they’re doing it wrong.
- – Push too fast to meet? You’re a stalker.
- – Take too long to meet? You’re a player with too many options.
- – Spend a lot of money on a first date? Too intimate. Too much pressure to put out.
- – Spend too little money on a first date? He’s cheap. Selfish. A serial dater.
What do most guys do in light of all of this? Exactly what you described
- a. Choose a casual, low-stakes place for coffee or drinks, so he doesn’t have to spend too much time or money on a woman who, 75% of the time, will not become a second date. (Presuming there’s a 50% chance you don’t like him and a 50% chance he doesn’t like you.)
b. Ask “What do YOU want to do?” He figures if he asks you, he can’t get it wrong. (Which is, of course, the wrong answer. You don’t want him to ask you where to go. You want him to make the decision YOU would, picking anything – except a coffee shop, bar, pub, chain restaurant, or fancy restaurant, as long as it’s well-reviewed, local, and you haven’t eaten there recently. How could he go wrong?)
None of those is to suggest that your desire to have a better first date connection is a foolish one. If anything, I completely agree with you and have written extensively about the value of building up trust, rapport and anticipation BEFORE the first date to ensure that you go on better first dates.
Most guys don’t like the odds of splurging on dinner with a stranger, so the trick is in making him invest in you PRIOR to your first date.
To answer your question more pointedly, Katerina, yes, you were missing something: an understanding of the male dating experience.
Now that you know that:
- A) Men face more rejection in a month than you’ve likely faced in your lifetime.
- B) Men get stuck paying for a new woman each week who doesn’t come as advertised or doesn’t like him in return, and…
- C) Men don’t know (or care) what you want out of a date — they’re just trying to see if there’s chemistry before investing a lot of money…
Perhaps that will help you have more empathy for these poor clueless schmucks.
Now that you do, your best bet to get a guy to WANT to take you out to dinner?
Follow my 2/2/2 rule as outlined in my TED talk and Finding the One Online — and watch as men step up to the plate like never before.
In summation, most guys don’t like the odds of splurging on dinner with a stranger, so the trick is in making him invest in you PRIOR to your first date. Not by demanding dinner after your first eHarmony email, but by flirting and leading him from email to the phone to a date over the course of a week.
My Love U clients SWEAR that this is the most life-changing thing they’ve ever learned about online dating, so please, don’t knock it until you’ve taken my course and tried it yourself.
Malika says
London has the most amazing selection of upmarket cafes and cocktail/wine bars. Their prices aren’t that much higher (if at all) than the pub, as going out in London comes at a price wherever you go. Added bonus: you are not competing for attention with a huge TV screen showing the latest rugby match. There is such a huge amount of choice, you are really not doomed to the grimy pub that still smells of cigarette and pee of patrons long past. How about going to one of the chiquer places as a compromise? He doesn’t have to spend a fortune ( A couple of beers/glasses of wine is a fraction of the price he would pay at a restaurant) and you get to dress up without having to look out of place.
I nixed coffee by day as a date plan, as it is way too casual. The stakes are really too low, and i notice that people put less effort in the date itself as it’s rushed and feels like nothing out of the ordinary. But drinks at a nighttime venue still feels date-like enough, and people seem to open up more and relax during the date.
Malika says
Addition: And eat beforehand or order a few small snacks when you are at the bar. Then you don’t have to worry about a grumbling stomach.
One guy a couple of months ago met up with me for what i thought was a couple of drinks. He then said he hadn’t eaten yet, so ordered his dinner. I ate with him to alleviate the weirdness, even though i was full from my recent meal. He then turned out to have maxed his credit card and i ended up paying for it! Never heard from him again, but it was a lesson in how men must feel on the date. I actually didn’t even mind paying 70 euro’s for the evening, seeing the amount of times men have paid my way. It was more a complete lack of thought from the other person, a ‘oh, random lady will pick up my tab’. From now on i state clearly that i am in for drinks as i have eaten before and make a sincere offer to split the bill.
Katie says
Ugh. I bet he felt terrible. I empathize for him.
Stacy2 says
Empathy is good but it won’t solve the OP’s dilemma. That said, there isn’t really anything abnormal in her situation. I don’t think it’s wise to plan a dinner in advance for the 1st date when OLD. You don’t want to be stuck with a stranger over a 2 hour dinner with no quick exit opportunities – what if they turn out to be awful in one way or another? My absolute favorite for 1st dates are wine bars. They usually serve beer (for those less sophisticated..lol ) and offer light snacks, and they’re cheap – $9 for a glass of wine is not gonna break anybody’s wallet – and have nice, quiet and romantic atmosphere. So…
1. If a guy suggest a pub, I’d say “this place sounds fun but [it’s not really my scene]/[how about a more intimate place] or [whatever], there’s this cute wine bar on X and Y”.
2. If a guy asks you where you’d like to go – it’s strike one but cut him some slack.. suggest the same wine bar
3. Never suggest a dinner or be prepared to pay as the party that asks pays! Seriously you can’t expect to ask a guy buy you dinner. If by 8pm you’re getting hungry and he’s not suggesting taking it to the next level – it is NOT going as well as you think. Simply wrap it up, be nice and go home make yourself a sandwich.
4. This guy may ask you out for dinner for the 2nd date, or may not. In my limited experience, every single serious relationship i had progressed to dinner from drinks on date one. But i never had to suggest it and went on countless 1st dates that did not progress to dinner, obviously.
Stacy2 says
In addition: one way around this awkwardness is to schedule a date for later in the evening and eat beforehand. Be on the same page that this is drinks only..
And, don’t out too much stock into how smoothly a guy plans a date. This is a double edge sword. You know who is great with planing romantic dates and charming you? Players. Men who do that a lot and have a lot of practice. A guy who is suggesting a pub may not be a ladies’ man but that is not necessarily a bad thing, if he turns out to be decent in other aspects
Tron Swanson says
Great post, Evan! I wish that more women would look at things from the male POV.
JB says
Thanks Evan for explaining it so well actually perfectly. As a man that’s been doing this since the dawn of the internet there’s a few things that go into my decision whether to make the initial meet & greet just “drinks” or now I occasionally say “let’s meet for a pizza” which still keeps things in the reasonable range. There have been a few times a long time ago I got stuck with doing dinner and spending a lot on someone I knew I’d never see again…..etc. Now I pretty much keep it by the book. Going “out to dinner” is a second/third date thing not a meet & greet thing. Sometimes a woman will return an email and say “sure we can meet for dinner” even if I’ve never asked them to dinner and when that does happen I play it by ear but it’s very rare.
Michelle says
You can’t go wrong with after work drinks. When I was dating I *always* suggested the place because I work on the street in our city that has the best bars which were buzzy and lively, so if the conversation wasn’t flowing there was always good people watching! *I* didn’t mind choosing places because I’m more comfortable on dates in spots that I’m familiar with, and some of the guys I dated were new in town or worked in another area of the city. Evan’s spot on that there’s no guarantee the first date will turn into a second date, so this way it is a win-win. You still get to enjoy going to a place you’ll know you like.
The bars I choose always served “small plates”/tapas so if we decided to linger we could get something to nibble on without the formality of dinner. If you’re dying of starvation you could say you’ve got dinner plans with friends at 8 or whatever. If the guy’s interested he’ll arrange a second date so again, win-win.
Jenny says
I might suggest directly and flirtatiously suggesting he pick the place, (“I’ll let you pick ;)” ), and either suggest your own or specify your parameters if the conversation allows it. Stacy2’s wording is good.
I’m surprised though that people prefer drinks to a reasonably cheap but not the cheapest dining. Maybe London is different, but in US cities, a nice Chinese restaurant (with table cloths) or a trendy sandwich place is a better value and atmosphere than drinks and snacks at a bar, unless you just get a Budweiser a piece. :p
Nissa says
Maybe I’m missing something, but I’d just interpret that as ‘those guys just aren’t that into her’. Men go after what they want. If they don’t take the initiative, that’s a clear sign of disinterest. I’d listen to what they are not saying, and move on.
Kyra says
I sort of agree with this. If I am having drinks with a man and he’s sticking around, 9 times out of 10 he asks, “Would you like to get something to eat?” and we make our way to a restaurant.
I have a friend and she’s been on a succession of “grab a drink” dates that do not turn into dinner. She has never been asked to dinner in the nine or so months she has been dating. I generally have men move from drinks to dinner and/or ask me to a very romantic/expensive dinner for a first date. My friend asked what is it I’ve been doing to get this and, honestly, I have no idea why or how this is happening or what I am doing to make it happen. It’s a first for me, but it’s been consistent over the past two months. I figure it’s perhaps something I’m giving off in the conversational stage or during the first meet over drinks.
If a man wants to take you to dinner, he’ll take you to dinner. There’s probably the “date upsell” (I can’t think of a better term for it) she’s not good at initiating. Maybe not enough flirting throughout the date or showing that she is, indeed, into the guys?
ScottH says
ok guys, listen here… I have this figured out,,, if you’ve done your vetting and think you have a lock on a very solid target,,,, Theeee best is going to Ruth’s Chris Happy Hour, or equivalent. Classy place, great food, very reasonable prices. She can’t not be impressed.
Marika says
The other thing to bear in mind is that while all of the general principles and much of the specific advice Evan gives apply cross-culturally, there are some cultural differences which mean that there are expectations and concepts you need to modify slightly.
England, much like Australia (where I live) has a strong drinking / pub culture. It’s where much of our socializing occurs. So it’s often the first date suggestion. You can wear heels to a pub with a pretty top and nice jeans and look lovely. Often if that goes well, dinner will come next.
I personally will go along with any suggestion the man makes for a location and make the best of it. That encourages them to be proactive (which I love), and I understand that Australian men aren’t always as confident at dating and approaching women as I think American men are (in general). I will find something amazing about the venue and comment on it to make them feel good about their choice (which can be a nerve wracking decision). Is it possible you’re making your distaste for pubs obvious and that’s making the man feel insecure?
Dinner is great once you get to know someone, but as a first date it’s not always ideal, for the reason other commenters have stated.
DK says
Evan hit on the head — as a recently single man, I’ve had some women try and rope me into dinner on the first date and I’ll say, “Historically, dinner feels like a second date — I like to keep the first more casual, less formal — drinks / coffee” — if they balk / bail, whatever — not for me… Although I’ve had a string of ten $32 drink dates (I order a Coke, they one or two drinks or an appetizer) — which turned into no 2nd dates and I’m in hole for $320 (yeah, yeah, cost of dating, but still, the ROI is not good…)… To someone’s point here, I’ve found people go into a coffee date not giving a shit (no effort whatsoever) — I’ve yet to find that perfect balance / place, but ideally the right person won’t think of me for cheap if I suggest frozen yogurt or coffee or whatever….
Chance says
Agree 100%. My first dates were always for coffee, and I’d say that my date wanted a 2nd date almost 90% of the time. Seriously, what guy would even want to be with a woman who was so fussy/entitled/delusional to be irritated by a coffee date (that he’s paying for)? The more I think about it, it serves as a good test for a serious potential character flaw in the woman.
Evan Marc Katz says
Coffee dates are the worst. The only reason anyone goes on them is because they’re expecting he worst. Make more of an investment in screening by email and phone over a week and you won’t be so afraid of doing drinks on Saturday night. Says the guy who went 300 dates, stopped doing coffee and lunch dates entirely, and did a TEDx talk called No More Bad Dates.
Shaukat says
Seriously, what guy would even want to be with a woman who was so fussy/entitled/delusional to be irritated by a coffee date (that he’s paying for)?
True, but I personally discovered over the years that coffee dates don’t at all get me excited about the date, and so I don’t put my best foot forward in that type of setting. Moreover, first dates can sometimes escalate fast physically, but that becomes very difficult if you’re just having coffee.
So I’ve found that drinks are the best bet, but definitely not dinner. Also, if it’s clear there’s no interest on my part, or even if I’m interested but I can tell that she’s not feeling it, then I make sure to split the bill. Even if that upsets her, it doesn’t matter since we’ll never meet again.
milosporos says
Hello! I ve been reading your blog religiously even though I have not subscribed. Your advice is always spot on, especially cause it helps understand the other gender’s perspective. But, as someone commented above, keep in mind your international readers; coffee dates are for instance very popular in Mediterranean countries, cause that’s where young people socialise. They don’t cost much and you can spend hours discussing- nobody thinks that’s a bad date, since it’s the norm!
Evan Marc Katz says
Thanks, Milos. So you know, here’s the real advice:
SparklingEmerald says
I went on a coffee date a little over 2 years ago. (I am into letting the male lead, and that’s what he suggested, so I went with it. And I am not anti-coffee dates anyway).
I got there early, so I bought my own coffee. When he showed up, we greeted each other on the patio with a hug, then he got a twinkle in his eye, leaned in and gave me a quick kiss on the lips, and I leaned in halfway and kissed him right back. He spotted my coffee on the table, and the twinkle in his eye faded just a tad, and a slight frown flickered across his face. Then he said he was going to buy himself a coffee, and asked me if he could could get me a blueberry muffin. I said yes. So he put his arm around me, I put my arm around him and we walked inside to get his coffee and our blueberry muffins.
We have been walking arm in arm ever since that day (and enjoying each others muffins 🙂 ) and today that handsome man who met me for coffee is now my husband !
That’s just my experience, obviously, YMMV.
Henriette says
I don’t like coffee dates for the first meeting, but I don’t believe it’s bc I’m fussy/ entitled/ delusional. Rather, in the evenings most coffee shops – at least, where I live – are brightly lit, peppered with people chatting loudly on their cell phones and study groups discussing case histories or reviewing notes… all of which are fine, but don’t lend themselves to a cozy, intimate atmosphere which support budding romance.
Chance says
Sure, but you being a decent human and all, I’m guessing you wouldn’t get mad at a guy for having the gall and temerity to buy you a cup of coffee on a first date meet-and-greet. That’s the difference. You don’t have to like something (kind of like how guys don’t like how they have to pay for dates solely because of what’s between their legs), but you don’t verbalize your displeasure or hold it against him. You just pretend to like it in the same manner that the guy pretends to like having to pay.
stacy2 says
Chance,
i wouldn’t get mad I just wouldn’t accept the date at all. I have gone on coffee dates a couple of times in the past and concluded they were simply a waste of time. Coffee shops are loud and disgusting with hipsters on their laptops and spilled coffee everywhere (where I live) and you can’t seriously expect a woman to dress up for a 30 min in that dump. If neither is brinning their A-game, Why bother at all?
Tom10 says
I’m with the ladies on this one — I’ve done a few coffee dates for the first time lately and concluded that they’re a waste of time.
I don’t care about the cost of a date really, whether high or low, rather as Henriette pointed out, they don’t lend themselves to creating an atmosphere of possible romance; it feels like I’m meeting a college buddy for a catch-up.
A date always needs to create the feeling of possibility, which coffee dates don’t. You know beforehand that there’s no chance of the date continuing into one of those wonderful, long, unplanned meandering occurrences that just happen now and again.
Without that tension the date just feels flat. That’s why it’s hard to beat a good old-fashioned drinks date; whether in a pub, bar or wine-bar.
Chance says
Evan, Shaukat, Tom10, and Henriette: thanks for your responses. However, I may not have been clear because it wasn’t my intent to debate the merits of coffee dates. I was just trying to point out that guys shouldn’t be concerned about whether or not their date will like it. I always preferred them because I like going to coffee places, and I don’t like drinking at bars/restaurants in general. Also, contrary to Henriette’s experience, I generally find coffee places to be more quiet. It has nothing to do with expecting the worst as I was always quite hopeful, and hey, things seemed to work out for me. If you prefer drinks over coffee, nothing wrong with that, of course. However, I never really cared to ask for my date’s preference, and I don’t think most women would want a man who isn’t decisive. Finally, the fact that someone like Stacy2 wouldn’t accept a date like this just serves as the ultimate validation that I had been doing the right thing (and, besides, I’ve never really been into women who spend a lot of money and energy to ensure that they are perfectly coiffed).
Malika says
I mostly don’t like coffee dates because they are rushed and take place in venues that are mostly one step up from the McDonalds. I don’t think it’s a costs thing. A couple of coffees is only a couple of Euro’s cheaper than a few beers/glasses of wine at a bar later at night. It really isn’t a hit to your wallet to go to a nighttime venue that i associate more with a date. If a guy suggests a coffee, i just suggest we meet in the evening instead. I have never had a guy call me a high maintenance diva because of it, so that shouldn’t stop people from tweaking the suggestion slightly. On the flipside, i have also had dates that wanted something slightly different than what i proposed. My reaction was always ‘that’s a cool idea’ rather than ‘Omg, difficult!’
Henriette says
Thanks for assuming I’m a decent person, @Chance; no doubt there’re some here who’d beg to differ 🙂 No, I’ve never griped or complained about a guy suggesting a coffee place. That would be horribly ungracious. To be quite frank, I far prefer guys who pay for the first few dates but it’s not about the expense as much as the gesture; a man who takes me to a free play in the park and buys me an ice cream afterwards is showing the same thoughtful, gentlemanly behaviour as a guy who pays for an $80 meal.
I have never been a coffee drinker but most cafes serve other drinks like tea or cocoa (just as bars serve non-alcoholic drinks for those who wish to teetotal) and that’s all fine with me. None of my coffee dates have turned into anything beyond a first date, but perhaps with the right cafe (somewhere quiet, dark, cozy) and the right-enough guy, a relationship could develop, I just suspect it’s less likely. Truly glad that your coffee dates have led you to a happy romance!
JB says
First off I drink coffee in the morning and rarely past 10am. In all my years I’ve only ever met 1 woman for “coffee” in the evening at her suggestion and insistence because come to find out she had to return an item at the Macy’s near by. After she showed up almost 40 minutes late to the Starbucks SHE chose. We waited in line to order and I could tell I lost huge points for not knowing the difference between a double mocha latte and an Iced Cinnamon macchiatos or whatever the fuck it is…lol. I’m sorry I’m not an expert. I have coffee at home and when I get to work. When I go out at night whether with friends or on a meet & greet I have a drinks at a bar of some sort and that’s it. Not to mention I look much better after a couple of drinks and any woman does too! 🙂
MikeTO says
Coffee dates are fine for first meets. Evan’s advice only works because most men are wanting to get sex. A lot of these men will disappear if they don’t get sex by the 3rd date and will not spend more than $40 total on a date.
Men are tired of the wage gap nonsense which has been debunked. Its time for women to pay their own way, only then will most men take women more seriously. Women claim wanting to be equal to men but not bear the responsibility. No amount of tricks is going to fix that. Women up!
Evan Marc Katz says
Didn’t you go your own way?That’s what you told everyone in the manosphere.
Stacy2 says
Does any woman really like pubs? The smell of stale beer that reeks there makes me want to vomit, the bar surface is always sticky from the layers of uncleaned dirt and the food is all fried stuff with like 1000 calories per bite. Not to mention screens that play sports! (personally i would rather watch the grass grow..). It’s really hard to conjure less romantic atmosphere. No, you gotta guide these poor cluless guys away from those places. This is where they should go with thier “bros”. LOL
Marika says
Stacy2
Are you American? That doesn’t describe all pubs in all parts of the world. I quite like pubs and completely understand why men in my culture plan dates (particularly first dates) in pubs. In countries with a pub culture, often the pubs are reasonably nice with a range of food options. The person who asked the question is dating in London, not America.
If you nitpick the guy’s choice of dating venues, particularly early on, you can’t expect him to keep wanting to take initiative (like the question asker does). Turning your nose up at pubs may make you come across as high maintenance, which is unlikely to lead to a second date. You need to allow for cultural differences.
Stacy2 says
I have visited pubs in 3 different countries (including NYC where I live) and yes, these are the common denominators. Come’on now. A pub is a pub.
Turning your nose up at pubs may make you come across as high maintenance, which is unlikely to lead to a second date
You know – may be, and i don’t care, and neither should you. Do you enjoy spending time at pubs? If yes, by all means go have fun. I personally find them disgusting and I do not enjoy being there, on a date or not. This is not my scene. And i am not going to pretend to be some “cool girl” who’s gonna gobble up beers and burgers with “the guys”, that’s just not me and if a guy decides to not date me based on that I am ok with it.
Marika says
London has some lovely pubs, as does Sydney. As I’ve said a few times, your experience isn’t everyone’s experience.
I absolutely don’t want to come across as high maintenance or selfish and I care as much about the guy’s feelings and preferences as my own.
I certainly don’t have your extreme aversions to pubs, but even if the guy took me a less than amazing pub (or restaurant), which has happened, I make the best of it. That’s called being polite and a good date.
You can tell the man what to do and what you want from the outset, and be clearly displeased if he dares to suggest somewhere you don’t like, but then you can’t also say that you want him to be proactive (and give him a strike 1).
Stacy2 says
Marika:
I absolutely don’t want to come across as high maintenance or selfish
That is your prerogative, and I don’t know how old you are but you actually seem quite young. Me, personally, in my thirties, I am at a point in life when I want to come off authentic above everything else, even if my authentic self is too “high-maintenance” to some guy’s taste. It simply meas we’re not compatible and there’s no point in trying to pretend somebody I am not. And, I am most definitely at a point where I am done pretending to be a “cool girl”. I don’t like X, Y, Z things (pubs among them) and I don’t enjoy them and I don’t do them. Period, the world and the entire male population of it just going to have to live with it. I have earned the right to do as I please and not pretend for anyone. You will get there at some point… probably when you realize that a 2nd date with just any guy isn’t that much of a prize to torture yourself for…
…and also – how did you move from suggesting a different type of venue to being “selfish”? Makes no sense.
You can tell the man what to do and what you want from the outset, and be clearly displeased if he dares to suggest somewhere you don’t like, but then you can’t also say that you want him to be proactive
There’s nothing wrong with steering a man in a gentle and respecting manner and educating him about your taste. A normal guy will use this as an opportunity to learn your modus operandi, if you never voice any opinions how’s he supposed to know what you like and what you don’t? Makes zero sense.
Helene says
When I was online dating I absolutely expected a first date to be drinks, and if a guy had suggested dinner I wouldn’t have been keen- that’s trying too hard, plus I don’t want to commit to all that in case I didn’t like him. I also used to aim to meet latish e.g. 8.30pm and on a weeknight, so that if it was awful I could legitimately leave by about 9.45 claiming an early start. I seemed to get plenty offers of second dates, and the midweek drinks first date seemed very much the convention in my neck of the woods. I would let them pick the venue, but if they were from out of town or asked for a suggestion I had one particular classy wine bar with low lightning that I would suggest- I used it so often for first dates the staff must have thought I was an escort! In my view, the first date is really a reconnaisence operation and the real dates start after that.
ScottH says
The discussion here so far is interesting. Not too long ago there was another post very similar to this where the prevailing opinion was that the guy should treat the woman to dinner on the first date. I disagreed and took a bit of flack for it. Some agreed with me but there was a strong contingent who didn’t. Now it seems that most people are in agreement that dinner is not appropriate for the first date. I even got called cheap for saying that I didn’t want to spend $30 on a first date although I’ve done it many times. What gives?
https://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/online-dating-tips-advice/can-222-rule-online-dating-still-work-many-dont-use-email/#comments
Marika says
I had a look at your comments on the above post, ScottH and the main issue seemed to be this kind of attitude: but in any case, yes, i can be cheap and don’t like wasting a dime or a minute on someone who misrepresents herself. Which related to a point about not wanting to spend $30 on a date. If you go out to a bar and have a couple of drinks and some finger food, you’re likely to spend more than $30.
Your point seemed to indicate that you wanted to find the cheapest, quickest date you could, and were overly concerned about cost and having ‘an easy out’. That was the main issue, I think.
Emily, the original says
Marika,
Your point seemed to indicate that you wanted to find the cheapest, quickest date you could, and were overly concerned about cost and having ‘an easy out’.
I don’t have a problem with that type of thinking. If you are OLD, you haven’t met your date face to face. There is no need to have more than a quick meet ‘n’ greet. One or both of you could want to bail. You need an out, and I don’t want to feel beholden to a man who’s spent a bunch of money. Going on a “proper” date is for date #2, after you’ve vetted each other. And if the man is thinking the meet ‘n’ greet is going well but wants to hold off on suggesting dinner to see if, in a few days, the woman says yes to a second date (so that he can determine her interest level before shelling out a bunch of cash), that’s also fine.
Evan Marc Katz says
Still haven’t invested in Finding the One Online, Em?
Marika says
If you want to approach dating like this: I want the easiest, low-ist risk date I can to ‘vet’ them just in case the person is a jerk, crazy, stalker etc…,go for your life.
I’d like to approach dating like this: I’m looking forward to meeting this new person and getting to know them so that we can see if we can form a connection. If not, I will at least get a chance to practice my dating skills and we’ll both walk away feeling good about the meal/drinks & the other person.
People aren’t commodities or job interviews. When a guy approaches dating the way you recommend, I can tell. I don’t feel like I want to be vulnerable or open with him and it’s almost impossible to tell if I want a second date when it’s clear I was scheduled in for a 1 hour meet & greet in some coffee shop where he has an easy ‘out’.
The only thing you risk if you go on a reasonable date (not necessarily dinner) is your time and some money. I understand the money thing is a concern, particularly for men, if they keep paying for dates they never see again, but the alternative is pretty sad to me. I would venture to suggest the less you spend on a date, the more you spend in the long run, as you’re going on rushed/boring/low risk date after rushed/boring/low risk date trying to achieve chemistry over coffee.
Yep, buy Finding the One Online.
GoWiththeFlow says
Hey Marika,
I won’t do coffee meet and greets anymore. I was typically scheduling them between work or errands and it just always felt rushed and tense. Not surprising because most Starbucks and other coffee places are furnished so that you don’t get too comfortable. They want the huge majority of their customers to get their coffee and scone and leave. They don’t make make a lot of additional sales to customers who linger.
One thing I did this past summer was start going out with some girlfriends to some nicer bars and casual restaurants just to get out and have fun. Little did I know I was engaged in venue research. Especially if a man is meeting me on my side of town–and my side of town is the party zone–they will almost always run a place “I heard about” by me and I’m able to give an informed answer.
On OLD I’m running about 50:50 on being asked for meet-for-drinks vs. dinner/evening long events for first dates. In the right place a “drinks” meet up can be close to a typical dinner date. One thing I do and that I suggest men do is to make whatever the date is the only thing you schedule that night. If you’re checking your watch and saying, “Sorry, i have to be somewhere at 9” you are no longer on a date, you are on someone’s time clock.
ScottH says
My position was that I was not going to invite someone to dinner who I’ve never seen in person before. There is a lot of false advertising and misrepresentation on the dating sites. We’ve all seen it firsthand. Considering the large number of people we have to meet in order to find someone we might have a chance with, it does not make sense to have dinner together on the first date. YAG said that he typically did take women to dinner and was called classy and Evan largely agreed with his position. I was called cheap. Now in this thread, YAG has adjusted his position for financial reasons and Evan’s response the LW is more sympathetic to the guys.
I had one very formative experience that I mentioned in the last thread. I met a woman, after proper vetting, at a very nice place for happy hour. We talked past HH hours and she kept ordering and it got kind of expensive. She made no gesture to split. Then we went for ice cream and I was expecting her to offer to pay the token amount but she didn’t. The whole thing left a horrible taste in my mouth that I won’t forget. Most classy women (IMO) recognize that guys pay and make at least a token gesture to split, or don’t keep ordering like he’s an ATM. Yes, I should have ended the date early with her but I was “practicing” my dating skills and didn’t want to be rude to her. I just shouldn’t have been rude to myself and ended it early.
To say that I “wanted to find the cheapest, quickest date you could, and were overly concerned about cost and having ‘an easy out’ ” is simply not the case. Per the theme of this thread, consider dating from the guys standpoint. I do have a good job making a decent six figure salary but I have child support, college, and private high school on top of all the regular expenses and retirement is in the not too distant future. I have to watch my money and buying dinner for every/most women I meet the first time is not going to happen. The right woman for me will be very cool with that.
Yet Another Guy says
We talked past HH hours and she kept ordering and it got kind of expensive.
That is how meeting a woman for a drink turned into a $188.00 check. 🙂
ScottH says
$188 would have infuriated me. A nice person would not have had such a sense of entitlement on a first date.
Emily, the original says
Scott H,
I have to watch my money and buying dinner for every/most women I meet the first time is not going to happen. The right woman for me will be very cool with that.
Yes, she will.
Markia,
People aren’t commodities or job interviews.
I don’t think people are commodities, but scheduling an hours-long date with someone you haven’t yet met face-to-face puts a lot of pressure on both people. Then it feels like an EVENING. I suggested lunch for a recent first date with a man I had already met face-to-face, and I ‘m really glad I did. I was much more relaxed because the whole thing seemed more casual.
Yet Another Guy says
It had nothing do with taking a woman to dinner on a first date. You caught flak for being cheap. I spend more than $30.00 on a drink date. A glass of wine cost $9.00 – $12.00 where I live. A couple of glasses of wine each and a couple of hors d’oeuvres, and the bill is magically $70.00+ with gratuity.
With that said, I have had to re-think how I date. Throwing away $600.00 a month on women who do not pan out is not a good use of money. That is $7.2K per year on dates that never pan out. There was a reason why I kept my sexies-on-standby. If I had the money back from every date were a woman posted non-representative photos, I would be able to take a very, very nice vacation.
Tron Swanson says
Holy crap, I had no idea that dating was that expensive. I knew that I was saving money by not doing it, but, wow. Do you think those numbers are about average?
No wonder my savings account is in such good shape…
Yet Another Guy says
It depends on where one lives. I live in an expensive part of the country. A drink date usually runs on average $75.00 with gratuity (sometimes more, sometimes less). I was meeting a woman on Friday evening and another one on Saturday evening. There were weeks where I was meeting a woman on Friday evening, one on Saturday evening, and another on Sunday afternoon. It did take long to realize that afternoon dates were a waste of time.
Tron Swanson says
Good to know, thanks. I probably live in a more affordable area…but I can’t even fathom spending half that much. It just seems insane, to me. Evan has said that if a man really likes a woman, he’ll pursue her…well, I thought that I was interested in lots of women, but I must not be, because I don’t pursue all that much. Too much time and trouble.
Good luck with your situation. Paying for dates and paying for child-support…I can’t even imagine.
Yet Another Guy says
@Tron Swanson
Paying for dates and paying for child-support…I can’t even imagine.
It is a big check every month, but my kids are worth it. 🙂
Stacy2 says
YAG:
A couple of glasses of wine each and a couple of hors d’oeuvres, and the bill is magically $70.00+ with gratuity.
But you consume half of that, no? So she’s only “costing” you $35? If you weren’t meeting this woman for a date, what would you be doing instead? Likely you’d not be sitting at your apartment watching paint dry on your walls. You’d be entertaining yourself in some other way, may be going to a bar or s steak house with friends, going to the movies, or going to a game, going to a house party and bringing a bottle of wine, etc. All of these things are expensive and would cost you something. Hell, I begin to shed money the moment I step outside of my apartment and it doesn’t stop until i fall asleep at night… It’s just what life is in expensive cities.
My point being, that the actual cost of dating is only the incremental spend you would not have otherwise spent, which is likely much less than the headline # you’re quoting.
ScottH says
If I wasn’t going on a date, I’d be going to the gym and that wouldn’t cost me anything extra. And I would take a shower there so that would save me the cost of water and soap and dirtying a towel at home. And I might even squirt some soap into a ziploc bag for use at home later so now I’m making money. I’ve thought about stealing towels and selling them on ebay to pay for my dates but I haven’t gotten to that point.
Yet Another Guy says
@Stacy 2
You assumption is incorrect. I am not a thirty-something. I am a mid-fifty-something who wants to be able to retire comfortably in six to seven years. I do not go out when I am not on a date. While I earn a six-figure income, I am not killing it. I write a large child support check every month; therefore, I have to live on a budget. I do not go to bars. I usually play guitar, visit friends or family, go to the gym, or ride my bike when it is warm. I eat a non-conventional diet that contains very little saturated fat or salt (I am a flexitarian), so I prepare 99% of what I eat from mostly raw ingredients. I drink very little; therefore, my personal alcohol expense is very low. I do not attend sporting events because they bore me to tears. Other than the money I spend on my kids, my date-free weekends are expense-free weekends.
Stacy2 says
Ok gents, fair enough. So my question then is this: why invite a woman out at all? If that’s not what you enjoy on your own? I would do something I don’t myself enjoy for a date (let along first date). As those ladies out to join you for a bike ride, bring a bottle of rose ($11) or a box of strawberries have a mini picnic. Go for a bird watching walk in a park, bring your guitar. Be creative. Be authentic. Geez. A date should be about doing something you both enjoy!
ScottH says
It’s all about finding someone you have a connection with. I love going out and doing things with a partner, even if it costs me money. It’s an investment in the relationship which I want to do. But to spend money on the FIRST date with someone who’s likely misrepresented herself or isn’t who I think she is, that SUCKS. The first date is to see if a connection is possible and the second date is to step it up. That’s my philosophy. I’m not going to go all out on a stranger. And your suggestions are very good. I always prefer an activity date to sitting somewhere and drinking something. I think moving around and getting blood flowing (endorphins too?) helps a lot. A good date doesn’t have to be expensive.
GoWiththeFlow says
Hey Scott!
I think the threads are diverging in opinion because of the nature of the LW’s question. She is getting asked out on OLD for drinks for a first date and wants to know how to get that to a dinner date. If a man says, “So how about we meet for drinks at XBar around 6?” there’s just no considerate way to up the ante and say “Or how about dinner at YRestaurant around 6?”
One thing she can do with her OLD prospects is put a little more time and effort into mutual vetting. If the man feels more sure about her and is therefore more enthused to meet her, the chances of it being asked for evening long date that involves dinner goes way up.
In the meantime if she’s being asked out for drinks, there are ways both the man and the woman can work with it to make it something more than a quick hit and run meet up. This tends to get presented in a binary manner: It’s either the grimy sports bar with upholstered booths patched with duct tape and peanut shells on the floor or a 4 star restaurant that serves five courses. In truth there are many options between the two that would be a nice venue for a date. A place where the atmosphere is relaxed and you can easily stretch out the date to 2 or 3 hours if the rapport is good. Just make sure it’s easy to get a table and there are decent appetizers available. And if your 6 pm date starts sliding into 7 or 8, do ask if she’s hungry. I will typically offer to pay for round two of drinks or appetizers if we are this far in.
Then it’s more of a hybrid drinks/light dinner date than a formal dinner date. If things are disastrous you can both leave after the first round. If they’re going good, you’re both relaxed and comfortable and can have fun talking and watching any entertainment and activity that’s going on.
ScottH says
I think asking to meet at dinner time (6) almost implies that dinner will be involved. I don’t like to imply or leave people to infer so I make it clear that we are meeting AFTER dinner. I guess I do invite women to meet at happy hours without specifying dinner or no dinner but we usually do order HH food and that’s fine.
I guess in this situation, I do like being in the position of arranging things and being somewhat in control. Sometimes I’ll suggest something and she’ll counter-offer with something less nice and I’ve always accepted.
And another thing to consider about us guys who make “regular” salaries: every dollar we spend on a woman we’ll never see again is a dollar we could have spent on our kids. I do sometimes feel guilty about my dating budget when I try to cut back on some of my expenses with my kids. I hate that feeling.
Yet Another Guy says
I had an incident where I invited a woman to meet me for drinks at 7:30 at a neat local establishment. To my horror, she was waiting for table in the dining room when I arrived. I should have turned around and left because her photos were easily ten years old. However, the worse was yet to come because she was pure Melba toast from a conversation point of view. It was two of the most painful hours of my life. I did not order a second drink, coffee, or dessert. I had my credit card out when the waiter brought the check. I signed the credit card receipt and left without as much as shaking her hand. That was the last time that I allowed a woman to talk me into dinner.
I can empathize with you. I pay a healthy portion of my compensation in child support, and I like to do things with my children. Most of the women I meet who are within five years of my age have grown children, many of whom are married with their own children. They no longer have child-related expenses; therefore, they expect a man to spend as if he no longer has child-related expenses. That is why I started to pursue women who are closer to ten years my junior last fall. Their lifestyles are more aligned to mine.
Chance says
Hi YAG, just split the check the next time that happens. Who cares if it pisses her off? If she does get pissed, good riddance.
GoWiththeFlow says
I think Stacy2 had some great advice.
Instead of trying to steer a man you haven’t met in person yet towards a formal dinner date via phone call, accept the drinks date and see what he suggests. If he asks for input, suggest a wine bar or a place you know with a good atmosphere, tables, some finger foods available, and where you know the noise volume will be such that you can easily talk. It won’t do you any good if the place is so happening that you have to yell to be heard.
There is so much out there venue wise between pub/sports bar and a formal restaurant where the waiter drapes the napkin on your lap, that finding a place that has a great atmosphere shouldn’t be a problem. I have easily spent two to three hours on a “meet for drinks” date that gave ample time to get to know someone. Eat a snack an hour or two before if you think you may get hungry. It will also help keep you from getting too buzzed from drinking on an empty stomach.
Michelle says
Ahhhh @Marika, my antipodean sister! I’m glad we are both here to support this London lady – I haven’t dated in London for about 15 years (yikes!) but I think she’d be spoilt for choice for a stylish pub or wine bar 🙂 I’m glad like me you understand that men in our part of the world lack confidence and if I had waited for a man to suggest a place I’d have been waiting for the rest of my life! Luckily I’m a foodie with friends in hospitality and there are plenty of bars and pubs here in Auckland that make good date spots. It turns out that ironically I found a man who is basically teetotal and extremely health conscious (going out for him is coffee, full stop!) so if I’m going for drinks and tapas it’s with friends, but he’s so amazing in other ways that it’s a compromise I’m happy to make 🙂
Marika says
Haha, Michelle, Kia ora 🙂
Yes! So true!! That’s why I will go pretty much wherever (other than their place) a man suggests for a first date. You made a plan? Wooohoooo. Bring it on. Hard to understand if you’re used to smooth daters.
The pub culture is pretty ingrained in the Commonwealth. It’s not going away any time soon!
Bring on Mr health conscious, I say. Small price to pay, I agree 🙂
Yet Another Guy says
Evan, I appreciate your explaining in gory detail what it is like to be a man on the dating sites. I spent just under $1,300.00 during my first month of online dating after separating from my ex. I had a drink date turn into a $188.00 date that did not produce a second date. I learned to put limits on dates fairly quickly. If women had to pay and face the amount of rejection that men face, online dating would collapse.
Guys do not start out being serial daters. It is the process that turns well-meaning guys into serial daters. A guy starts out targeting specific women. He writes a woman and waits for a reply that is never sent. After going through that process couple of times, he starts to write two or three women at time. When that approach does not work, he starts to write ten or more women at time, which results in one or two responses. After a while, his messaging skills improve, and he magically gets five to ten replies for ten messages. It is about that time that women he messaged weeks ago decide that they are going to respond, and women are start to write him out of the blue. All of sudden, a guy is juggling conversations with 15+ women at any given time. The only way to handle that many women simultaneously is via messaging on the site or text messaging. Voice conversations are out of the question. I met thirty-nine women in the first three months that I was separated. I met five women in one weekend. I only turned three of those thirty-nine dates into second dates. The total cost for those three months was just shy of $2,800.00. That was total insanity.
Yet Another Guy says
*women start to
Michelle says
I’m curious @Marika – do men in Australia shout drinks/food on first dates? My personal bias is that I’m uncomfortable for a man paying for everything so if the date’s going well and he insists on paying I pay on the second date. On a drinks date I though I usually do rounds, (with him generally offering the first round). NZ is much more egalitarian than the US (much smaller pay gap and two female prime ministers as you may know) where I used to live so I take Evan’s advice about that with a cultural grain of salt – it would be odd here if the man was expected to pay for a woman every time. Same in Oz or no?
Marika says
Great question, Michelle,
It varies depending on their age and income. I’ve had men pay for the whole first date, at least part of it, or none of it. The majority pay for at least part of the first date (e.g. they will buy my first drink). Definitely beyond the second date it would be unusual for a man to keep paying for everything, unless they were rich or from the older generation. Like you, I personally wouldn’t feel comfortable letting them pay for everything beyond one or two dates and I at least offer money, even on the first date. I do like at least a small gesture of buying me say a drink on the first date, I respond to that chivalry.
Some of my friends don’t, however and would rather go dutch the whole time.
So men, understandably, are probably a bit confused! Sorry guys! I think offering to pay on the first date is always a nice gesture, even if the woman refuses.
On the flip side, my brother, for instance, is very old fashioned and always paid for everything for every woman he dated. He would’ve been offended if they didn’t let him. In those cases I would let the guy continue to pay, but in honesty would feel a bit awkward about it.
Marika says
Stacy2,
No, it’s not an age thing at all. I’m a similar age to you, and Evan advocates being the ‘cool girl’ and he’s older than you. Remarks like these make you come across as selfish:
“The smell of stale beer that reeks there makes me want to vomit, the bar surface is always sticky from the layers of uncleaned dirt and the food is all fried stuff with like 1000 calories per bite. Not to mention screens that play sports! (personally i would rather watch the grass grow..). It’s really hard to conjure less romantic atmosphere. No, you gotta guide these poor cluless guys away from those places. This is where they should go with thier “bros”. LOL
And this:
If a guy asks you where you’d like to go — it’s strike one but cut him some slack.. suggest the same wine bar
You both have very specific views about where you will & won’t go, while simultaneously putting a strike against a man for asking you where you’d like to go (which sounds like the safe option in your case). And you can’t possibly conceive that there could be any nice pubs anywhere in the world. And any man who suggests one is ‘clueless’. Bit silly.
You seem to be (not so subtly) suggesting that I’m immature for being nice, easygoing & accommodating to a man who’s made a plan to see me (perhaps not the best plan in the world, but a plan nonetheless). That’s not true at all. I think wanting your own way when dealing with a stranger is immature (and focusing more on the venue than the man).
A first date is no time to ‘voice your opinions’. You’ll have plenty of time to do that down the track. You’d rather be ‘authentic’ than accommodating & easygoing, but what happens if you veto their pub, they veto your wine bar…and on and on it goes. You’ve achieved your aim of being ‘authentic’ and ‘voicing your opinions’, but you’ve made picking a venue unnecessarily hard.
Remember the story Evan told about how easygoing his wife was when his Korean (from memory) restaurant was closed? And that was one of the things that made him want to see her again? It’s that kind of thing that is nice on first dates. Being receptive, appreciating him for his efforts, being kind & understanding. Not seeing him as clueless & telling him what you want.
Don’t be the cool girl. Hate pubs. Think men who suggest pubs are clueless. Insist on wine bars. Voice your opinions within the first 5 minutes of meeting someone. Go for your life. I just don’t think that’s the best idea in the world and I definitely don’t think it’s appropriate when dating in a Commonwealth country, which has customs & practices that differ greatly from America & affect the dating culture.
Stacy2 says
You and I must have been taught an alternative version of the meaning of the word “selfish”. But ok, if having my own tastes and preferences makes me “selfish” in Australia- guilty as charged. (You also seem to miss the point that the OP lives in London and is unhappy with pubs… It’s not just me but ok whatever)
I don’t think you are immature i think you just haven’t gotten to the point in life where you value yourself over a stranger. I hope you will. This whole argument could be generalized as follows: “should I agree to do something I don’t enjoy in order to placate a man I am meeting for the first time, cause God forbid he may think I am difficult if suggest a change”? You answer yes and I answer no. I had agreed to those things in the past and they lead to bad long term outcomes. So yes, if he vetoes my wine bar and wants to stick to his guns he can… alone… He’s not that valuable. We haven’t even met. I don’t care if a stranger thinks I am bad news for preferring a wine bar over a pub.
Karl R says
Stacy2 said:
“This whole argument could be generalized as follows: ‘should I agree to do something I don’t enjoy in order to placate a man I am meeting for the first time, cause God forbid he may think I am difficult if suggest a change’? You answer yes and I answer no.”
“So yes, if he vetoes my wine bar and wants to stick to his guns he can… alone… He’s not that valuable.”
Stacy2,
So, if you want to go to a wine bar, and the man doesn’t enjoy that, should he agree to go in order to placate a woman that he’s meeting for the first time? Would you think he’s difficult if he suggests a change?
If he vetoes your wine bar, and you want to stick to your guns, shouldn’t he make the same assumption that you do (when the situation is reversed) … that you’re not that valuable?
Seriously, you’re trying to justify your own behavior … even though it’s the same behavior that you won’t tolerate in a man.
Stacy2 says
So, if you want to go to a wine bar, and the man doesn’t enjoy that, should he agree to go in order to placate a woman that he’s meeting for the first time?
No of course note. I mean if he like really hates wine bars (is this possible?) but lets say he does. Allergic to good things. I will accommodate some middle ground. If middle ground can’t be found wouldn’t that be a sign we’re badly not compatible and wasting each other’s time?
Also: we are all some degree of “difficult”. May be I am more difficult than an average person. That means that a guy who’d equally difficult is NOT a good match for me. Too much fighting will ensue. Better find a guy who’s more easy going (or is on the same page as I am 98% of the time, or both). Makes logical sense.
Marika says
I think she needs to type up her list of rules, both so she can hand it out to prospective dates, and so we can all keep track…
KK says
Stacy2,
You crack me up.
I went out with someone who fits your criteria, financially. He absolutely hated wine. Only drank scotch. I’ve tried scotch on two occasions; the second time with him. Hated it both times. I love wine; although I’m very particular about which wines I like. Crazy, I know, but our alcohol preferences were never an issue. Lol.
Karl R says
Stacy2 said:
“May be I am more difficult than an average person. That means that a guy who’d equally difficult is NOT a good match for me. Too much fighting will ensue. Better find a guy who’s more easy going (or is on the same page as I am 98% of the time, or both). Makes logical sense.”
I agree with all of this. For someone who is difficult, an easy-going partner will lead to a more harmonious relationship.
Looking at it from the other side:
For someone who is easy-going, an easy-going partner will also lead to a more harmonious match. So regardless whether you’re difficult or easy-going, your best bet is to avoid dating a difficult partner.
The problem some people face:
If someone is a difficult person (for example, if they display two or three of John Gottman’s Four Horsemen during a discussion of pubs), then most people will find them difficult as a partner. Even the easy-going people will realize that it’s easier to find a less difficult partner, rather than enduring a marriage with a more difficult one.
Michelle says
Too right @Marika! 🙂 The take home message from my story for the benefit of the OP is that the ability to choose a chic restaurant isn’t the most important quality of a partner. I dated two guys who both suggested a really twee dessert place which was the kind of place you took your mum on her birthday IMHO 🙂 Yes it was cringe worthy but they were both sweet guys doing their best and I appreciated that and focused on their other attributes. As I said my bf doesn’t like to go to restaurants at all so fortunately we met randomly when we were staying in the same hotel, as I wouldn’t have been impressed with his coffee suggestion!
Stacy2 says
Marika:
A first date is no time to ‘voice your opinions’.
OMG how did I miss this gem? So, what is it a time for then, to shut up, be pretty and do as he says? Because omigod he paid attention to me (!) and asked to to come hang out with him at his favorite pub (!) and oh horror – may think i am difficult and not ask me out again so I can’t let that happen!? Sweetie, do you even see a problem with this line of thinking or would you like for me to spell it out for you further?
Yes, the first date is the time to voice your opinions. So is the second, and the third, and so on. This is the whole point of dating – figuring out whether you’re compatible. What dating isn’t – or at least shouldn’t be – is you doing things you do not enjoy out of fear of rubbing some stranger guy in a wrong way.
It really is sad that even in this day and age some of us (women) feel the need to bend over backwards win an approval of and please a guy who they – wait for it – haven’t even met yet!!
What kind of a relationship do you think this can lead to? I have an answer for you – a bad one. The one where he comes to expect you to go with whatever he says he wants to do – and will act out if you reveal your real self (assuming your real self is not all about pleasing him of course). And why – because you will have conditioned him so. Ponder on that.
Lastly, when i use the term “cool girl” I do so in the classic definition as spelled out in a NYT bestseller “Gone Girl” by Gillian Flynn. It is essentially a girl who pretends to like things she doesn’t in order to get win approval and attention of men. Sounds familiar? When her relationship does not work out as planned she frames her husband for her murder. It’s an excellent read (much better than the movie) for all the ruminattion of the protagonist. Highly recommend. https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/13306276-gone-girl
Stacy2 says
Marika: and here’s also an excellent article on the subject from jezebel..
http://jezebel.com/the-cool-girl-is-not-fiction-but-a-phase-1642985632
“I don’t think this means the Cool Girl is fiction, but rather, a phase. I think she’s a perfect role to inhabit in your twenties when you’re unsure of yourself …. … But that girl also grows up and learns it’s better to be real than cool.”
happy dating!
Evan Marc Katz says
You’re taking your advice from Jezebel and then coming here to tell me that there is no cool girl. Sorry. There is. I married one. So did all my friends. Please look up the Love U Podcast on being the cool girl in which I cite the Jezebel piece and join Love U, rather than staying stuck with an ineffective mindset. Marika gets it. You naysaying doesn’t affect her; it does affect you.
Stacy2 says
Eh.. not really what I am doing. Simply explaining the cultural reference. Flynn’s definition of a “cool girl” has reached way more people than yours as evidence by google 1st page search results (no offence). What you call “cool girl” i simply think of as normal.
Not sure what Marika “gets”, but so far it appears that she gets guys who ask her to pubs and she’s afraid to speak up in order to not spook them (apparently the Aussies are a shy bunch, i dunno, zero exposure). I, on the other hand, may not “get it” whatever “it” is, but I do get a b/f who takes me to places where I want to go… Me being not “cool” and all.
Karl R says
Stacy2,
The Jezebel article uses a rather different definition of “cool girl” than Evan. There’s still a bit of overlap (not not clingy, not jealous, not needy, understanding, laid-back, not easily angered).
Given that my wife had all of those traits in her 50s, and still has all of those traits in her 60s, your claim that it’s “just a phase” sounds a bit hollow. Furthermore, that’s how my wife genuinely is.
Stacy2:
“What kind of a relationship do you think this can lead to? I have an answer for you — a bad one. The one where he comes to expect you to go with whatever he says he wants to do — and will act out if you reveal your real self (assuming your real self is not all about pleasing him of course).”
You’re missing a critical difference. My wife doesn’t spend lots of time pleasing me. She’s a cool and laid-back because she doesn’t spend any of her time being unpleasant.
And from what you’ve consistently displayed here, your “real self” is perpetually unpleasant. You’re so consistent about it that you come across as a caricature, not a three dimensional human being. I have to assume that you’re slightly more well-rounded than that, but I’ve really seen no evidence of it.
Most women aren’t that extreme. They don’t have to contort themselves into their complete opposite just to avoid being unpleasant. For most women, they simply need to relax, dial it down a little, keep things in perspective, and they become the kind of person that men find more appealing.
For someone like you, I don’t know what to recommend. If being unpleasant is the fundamental core of who you are, I don’t see a way to circumvent that when dating. You’re right. Eventually it’s going to become obvious to your date, that is who you are. I’m sorry. I don’t have any advice for that. I think you’re kind of screwed when it comes to dating.
Marika says
Yep, that’s a good way of explaining it, Karl R. I certainly needed to learn to be a bit more flexible, easygoing and less of an over thinker in my dating life. Luckily, thanks to Evan’s material and my dating experiences (good and bad), I’ve been able to do that (I’m on my way, at least!). But I never had to overcome a complete lack of flexibility, extreme entitlement, strict rules – based thinking and man-hate to be a more fun, less intense date and have better experiences with men.
Stacy2, you seem to think I have a lot to learn to come up to your ‘level’. I disagree. My dating experiences have taught me to be more flexible, less judgemental, less stuck in my own script, more able to judge what’s important (eg character) over what isn’t (eg less than perfect first date venue), yours seem to have done the opposite, which is a shame.
You seem to equate ‘valuing yourself’ with how many inflexible rules you have. Again, I disagree. The people I know who value themselves the most understand that they can be warm, receptive and understanding towards others, as not only is that how they treat themselves, they also know that letting the small things go (pubs vs wine bars) to be kind to others is no threat to them and their self worth.
That’s what I hope you come to understand one day. And don’t worry, I’m not about to kill my husband because he took me to a pub on our first date (as per your Gone Girl reference)…;)
Stacy2 says
KarlR,
I am not sure how your wife enters the picture here. The term “cool girl” was coined by Flynn in her bestseller and became widely known and referenced – sort of. If you google “cool girl” that is the only thing that will come up on page one. So, this is what i mean when I say “cool girl”. Sorry to not adhere to Evan’s definition.
As far as your other comments – nobody who knows me would characterize me as unpleasant LOL. Literally the only person who would say that is my ex/h and even he would admit that i only became extremely unpleasant after he became extremely disappointing and stayed that way for a while (he was given a rather long grace period to correct his act during which time i played the “cool girl”). Clearly he found me pleasant enough to date for 2 years and marry. So, a major lesson I drew from that failed relationship is that there’re certain things and behaviors that a man can do that will cause me to be extremely unpleasant and miserable and will lead to a destruction of a relationship – even if I pretend for a while to be a “cool girl” bout it (my definition! lol). So there’re certain things I lay out very early on. I will not do X. I have no interest in Y. etc. not small potatoes like wine bar vs. a pub. Big stuff, important stuff… They can take it or leave it. Those who leave it i wish them well, those who take it can be pleasantly surprised 🙂
Karl R says
Stacy2 said:
“The term ‘cool girl’ was coined by Flynn in her bestseller and became widely known and referenced — sort of.”
I love your revisionist history. Evan was using the term on his blog years before “Gone Girl” was published, and the term is much, much older than that.
Not the first time you’ve invented facts to support your point … but whatever.
Stacy2 said:
“So, a major lesson I drew from that failed relationship is that there’re certain things and behaviors that a man can do that will cause me to be extremely unpleasant and miserable and will lead to a destruction of a relationship”
So, based on your experience, what behaviors can you do (since you can only control your own behavior) which has led to successful long-term relationships?
You seem to have a long list of inflexible rules (applied to the men’s behavior) based on things that don’t work. What are your rules (governing your own behavior) based on what does work?
Anecdote and lesson for everyone … except Stacy2:
Back when I was 32, I dated a woman who was 23. The relationship didn’t go well. In many ways, it was worst relationship I’ve had. After we broke up, I decided that the 9 year age gap was just too much, and I’d never date anyone that much younger.
When I was 38, I started dating an amazing woman. On the second date I found out that I’d misjudged her age. She was 11 years younger than me. She was incredibly mature for someone of any age, however. If it hadn’t been for irreconcilable goals (she wanted lots of kids, I wanted none), then we might have ended up married.
That forced me to reconsider my previous rule. I had misunderstood the causes of the demise of my previous relationship. Until I realized my mistake, I was avoiding women who were perfectly fine. More importantly, I wasn’t watching out for the correct fatal flaw.
When I met my wife, she wasn’t interested in a serious relationship with someone 16 years younger. A previous boyfriend of hers was 14 years younger, and that relationship had been rather bad. Like me, she blamed the age gap as the cause of the failure.
As my wife and I were having our casual fling, she started to realize that I had none of the fatal flaws of the previous boyfriend. (In several key ways, I was the opposite.) She managed to finally come to the realization that her rule had been based on a mistake about what caused the demise of that relationship.
This kind of error is easy to make. I’m betting Evan made that mistake at least once. A large number of men and women have posted (and then defended) their mistaken beliefs here over the years. In each case, the mantra is always the same: “I tried it before, and it didn’t work. Therefore, I know I’m right.”
And until someone considers the possibility that they may be wrong, they’re unable to correct their mistake. (And that’s why this lesson is for “everyone else” … it’s for the people who are capable of learning it.)
Even though almost everyone makes this mistake (sometimes multiple times), you can only fix it for one person … yourself.
Stacy2 says
KarlR
I love your revisionist history. Evan was using the term on his blog years before “Gone Girl” was published, and the term is much, much older than that.
Not the first time you’ve invented facts to support your point … but whatever.
My revisionist history? Sorry I wasn’t reading Evan’s blog in 2011 (GG was published in 2012 – FYI) so I wouldn’t know. Oh horror. Fact checkers are here. LOL. In any case i am sure some people have used this term long, long before that but it didn’t become a “thing” until Flynn. Sorry to offend your sensibilities by using the term in a non-canonical way 🙂
So, based on your experience, what behaviors can you do (since you can only control your own behavior) which has led to successful long-term relationships
Choose more wisely, make my expectations unequivocally clear from the start, enforce boundaries swiftly, be mellow about everything else. I am way more mellow but far less cool these days (no bullshit flies, period) – if you can conjure that combination. For example, when i was younger I once had a massive fight with my then husband (#1) when he said he’d ski for an extra 30 minutes and showed up 1.5 hours later. These days I’d just be sitting at a bar sipping mulled wine and chilling. However I also in the past allowed my then husband (#2) to move us to an area that was cheaper so that he could quit his job, because i was a “cool girl” so understanding and so supportive (idiot) – now that bullshit does not fly at all anymore. So there you go. More mellow, less cool. Imagine that.
Evan Marc Katz says
Here, let me make this easier for you, Stacy2: https://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/the-love-u-podcast/men-really-like-cool-girl/
KK says
Stacy2,
I scrolled through the comments on the blog post Evan provided the link to and your comments were all over it saying how cool you are. Lol. I don’t know the date of that particular post, but apparently your views have changed??
Stacy2 says
@KK:
no i don’t believe so, i think you misread my comments. And that was in 2016, not 2011/2012
KK says
Stacy2,
“I think you misread my comments”.
Don’t think so. You said that you were cool and being cool never benefited you.
Callie says
I responded to Stacy2’s cool comment back in the other thread and I remember being surprised that she thought the only reason for being “cool” was to get praise for it. I said that that wasn’t the reason to do it, it was to help make the relationship as smooth and lovely as possible, not to get brownie points.
But I have to say going back and re-reading that thread, and then putting it in context with this one, I think it’s very possible a semantic mistake was made by Stacy. The way she talks about “cool” in the other thread sounds like something you put on for someone else’s benefit, hence desiring praise, and not a behaviour that is a positive natural one that one does regardless of outcome. And to me this suggests that in that other thread Stacy misinterpreted the meaning of Evan’s version of cool as the Flynn version of “cool girl”. Because the latter most certainly IS an act put on just to please men. So maybe it is possible that she was discussing the wrong “cool”, hence why it sounded so strange at least to me that she would not see any point in behaving that way.
I also have to agree that currently “cool girl” really DOES have the connotation Stacy says it does in general these days, even if others have used it to mean other things in the past. So the confusion of the terms is not so unexpected. That being said, I think Evan has also made it very clear what he means by it and seeing as this is his blog and his advice, we really ought to use his definitions for these terms and not assume he is suggesting women do things that he clearly is not.
AllHeart81 says
I will be honest, the whole “be the cool girl” , throws me off too. Most of us have dated men or heard men talk about women describing this concept of what a “cool” women is. And usually men define it on the back of what a woman does that best pleases him and his own personal desires. It usually comes from a selfish, self-motivated, manipulative place -convincing women it’s more important she be seen as cool by him and not setting up any personal boundaries because then he is free to behave anyway he wants. Telling women to be the “cool” girl is infact a term used to praise the girls who are “cool” and make sure the ones who are arent know they aren’t. Conveying the message for women to relax a little on a date, to not get hung up on certain things, conveys a complelety different message to me compared to telling me to be the “cool” girl. One makes me feel naturally defensive due to cultural ties, the other is just a good reminder to relax. While I don’t think Evan is telling women not to have any boundaries, we can not ignore the cultural reference that is more we’ll known as “the cool girl”. Women with self respect don’t want to be the “cool girl”. When I was in my teens and early 20s, I played that game and it was not good. But if you give advice for women to go with the flow a little more, to relax…that’s advice most women will take. The term “cool girl” is just bad…we shouldn’t even use it. Different words are needed here.
Evan Marc Katz says
AllHeart, you seem to think “cool” is swallowing things that are unacceptable, denying your own feelings and self-worth.
I’m defining it as largely accepting your partner as he is without complaining, nagging, micromanaging, emasculating, insulting or trying to “fix” him. If that’s “selfish” of a man to want that from the person who ostensibly loves him the most, then I will proudly wear the selfish badge for all men. I married my wife BECAUSE she’s cool – and guess what? – she’s really happy with her choice, too!
Malika says
Cool girl as how it’s used as a term outside Evan’s dating advice is a way of behaving i associate with the teen years. I was part of the ‘cool’ alternative group with girls vying for the attention of the most popular guys within that group. The girls would dress in a certain sexy-yet-alternative way, make out with anyone they could get and create Drama with a D in order to get attention. They pretended to like certain music, take drugs and do all round ‘one of the guys’, all for validation. In later years i met up with one of the dudes who all this was done for and asked him who he had a crush on. His answer? The one girl who was part of the group but who at that age already had the class to be herself and set healthy boundaries, not one of the drama queens. That was an almighty a-ha moment for me. Her name was Jasmin and in modern dating situations i ask myself ‘what would not cool girl Jasmin do?’
Stacy2 says
@Evan:
you seem to think “cool” is swallowing things that are unacceptable, denying your own feelings and self-worth
What me and other women are saying is, that the actual term “cool girl” has a strong negative connotation at this point culturally. You can check it yourself, just google it… it’s a negative term widely used to describe certain type of female behavior/personality. A “cool girl” is trying to morph herself in every guy’s dream – hot, never ever angry, likes everything he likes – in order to snag a guy.
You can create your own definition but perhaps a different, more suitable word would go over better.
Evan Marc Katz says
I’m not letting Gillian Flynn and Jezebel ruin the term cool girl for womankind. Men want a cool, easygoing, supportive, fun, accepting, positive partner. I will not waver on that. By the way, neither should you in your quest for lasting love. All of these qualities mean much more than a seven figure job in determining your future happiness.
Yet Another Guy says
@Stacy 2
Has a man ever told you that you are not worth the effort required to keep you happy? My philosophy is if she picks, she pays. If she expects me to select a venue and then vetoes my decision, I “next” her. There are way too many fish in the sea to deal with that kind of nonsense. It is that simple.
You are a stranger to the men you meet. Why should they bend over to please you if all you are going to do is be a demanding pain in the backside? You appear to be FemiType #1 (http://datelikeagrownup.com/meet-femtype-one-the-princess/).
Stacy2 says
LOL YAG. Not in so many words, but yes I am assuming a lot of men consider me not worth their effort. The key is, i think, to not lower the price but to wait for the right buyer.
You are a stranger to the men you meet. Why should they bend over to please you if all you are going to do is be a demanding pain in the backside?
Oh this is simple. Because they want and need sex more than I do. Sorry guys, blame the mother nature for saddling you with this biology. But generally that is the answer why men do what they do, isn’t it?
On a side note, i personally don’t view going to a wine bar vs. a pub as bending over backwards unless said guy has the same aversion to wine bars as I do to pubs. In which case I’d always be open to meeting him mid-way. At a rooftop lounge or a park for instance. Nobody needs to suffer, but everybody should show some degree of malleability.
Marika says
Good luck with all your rules, Stacy2!
Yet Another Guy says
Oh this is simple. Because they want and need sex more than I do. Sorry guys, blame the mother nature for saddling you with this biology. But generally that is the answer why men do what they do, isn’t it?
I can assure you that I do not need sex more than the women I meet. 🙂 I am the one who says “no” these days. I went a decade without it. My libido no longer controls my actions, so a woman has to offer more than sex to get my attention.
KK says
To me, “cool” is just another way of saying easy going, flexible. You can be cool and simultaneously maintain your boundaries. The opposite of cool is high maintenance.
From what I’ve seen, men who get involved with high maintenance women do so in spite of the fact that she’s high maintenance, not because of it. The opposite sex equivalent are women who get involved with a-holes. They tolerate bad behavior because of chemistry. Both types of relationships are doomed.
Men can be high maintenance too. It just shows up much differently. When someone is high maintenance, they place unreasonable demands on others and are only satisfied when those demands are met. I don’t think it’s the hallmark of a healthy or happy relationship.
Katerina says
Hi Evan,
thanks so much for this! It does put things into perspective…
And thank you everyone for your comments and support, it was definitely interesting to get some insights and to learn from your experiences!
And yes, I too have found a couple of wine bars where I’m comfortable in case there is no plan… but I feel that going with their plan gives me a better idea of who the person is… and I think I will stop suggesting to have dinner after drinks dates, thanks guys;)
It seems like money is the main issue, predictably, even if I offer to split the bill, which I do most of the time, they usually end up paying it anyway…
Stacy2 says
Katerina:
but I feel that going with their plan gives me a better idea of who the person is…
No, hearing what their plan is gives you an idea of who they are, you don’t actually need to go along with it (that’s zero incremental info). I do too “judge” men by their suggestions, but not in a negative sense – more like i categorize them mentally into buckets based on what they’re suggesting. Hip restaurant? Conservative piano bar? Wine bar? Neighborhood dive bar? Different kind of men, it tells me something about their personalities and how they operate.
However, suggesting a change and seeing how he reacts will give your an incremental insight: is he open to suggestions? Is he willing to please you? To go outside of his comfort zone? Etc. These are important
KK says
After reading the letter, Evan’s response, and the comments, I thought about my own dating experiences and relationships. I’ve found it helpful to think in terms of patterns by asking myself if there are any and if so, what’s the common denominator? For me, every relationship has started with a great first date.
One example was a guy I had met at a friend’s birthday party. We exchanged numbers, started talking and made plans to get together in a couple of weeks because we each had plans the following weekend. In that two week time period, we actually got to know a little bit about each other, develop a great rapport, and build anticipation for our first date. During one of those conversations, he had asked what my favorite restaurant was. I mentioned a trendy Asian place he also happened to like. Unbeknownst to me, he asked my friend for my address, so I was surprised to find a card from him in my mailbox. It was a card with a sweet, but lighthearted hand written note and chopsticks inside, which he had written on asking me to go with him to the place I had mentioned.
I know some people might think that it’s kinda cheesy, but I was impressed with the thoughtfulness and effort. We lived about 45 minutes from each other. He insisted on picking me up instead of meeting. We had a really great date. Dinner and drinks after with lots of laughs and great conversation. WHERE we went didn’t matter. He made me feel valued and that was key.
Contrast that with dates where I felt like I was one of many being tested to see if I was potential booty call material, maybe more, depending on the guy. Sorry, not sorry. Not interested.
Women are pretty good at reading a man’s interest level. A coffee date isn’t going to tell me any more about someone than a 20 minute phone conversation.
I realize and completely understand that men don’t want to spend a lot of money going on an endless string of first dates, which is why I really think if both men and women would spend a little time building a rapport before that first date, everyone would benefit.
Chris says
Surely the purpose of a first date is to establish if there is any rapport in the first place? An inexpensive first date is ideal for this, including the apparently dreaded “coffee date”. As Evan and other guys here point out, making every first date into a relatively expensive dinner and drinks arrangement is just prohibitively expensive for many (probably most) guys.
Perhaps women should appreciate whatever effort men have put into the first date (arranging and paying, even if its not much), and then if you like him give him a chance to spend more money on you in later dates. Your solution is having the man spend one or two weeks vetting the women prior to the first date by frequent phone calls, text messages, etc?
This sounds like its just shifting the first date into this first one or two week period. If this is the case then the man should be making an effort to ascertain over this pre-date period whether he actually wants to go to dinner with her or whether he should call the date off ahead of time.
KK says
“If this is the case then the man should be making an effort to ascertain over this pre-date period whether he actually wants to go to dinner with her or whether he should call the date off ahead of time”.
Yes.
Yet Another Guy says
@Chris
If this is the case then the man should be making an effort to ascertain over this pre-date period whether he actually wants to go to dinner with her or whether he should call the date off ahead of time.
Absolutely! If a man meets enough women, he will arrive at Evan’s 2/2/2 rule on his own. That is what I did before I found this site. My rule is even more strict. A twenty-minute telephone call does not cut it with me. I only meet women with whom I can hold at least a one-hour effortless telephone conversation. I have discovered that the desire to remain engaged with each other on the telephone translates directly to quality of the first date. I have had first telephone calls that lasted several hours. Those dates were well worth the time, effort, and money because we had fun. All of the dates where I did the hurry up and meet thing have left a lot to be desired. I would not have met a single one of these women had I taken the time to make a connection with them before hand.
CSI says
It doesn’t sound like it would be for everyone though. Actually I see some problems with this idea. It takes a lot more effort than organizing a quick, cheap date with someone. You have to be able to talk with a stranger for an hour or more.
And beyond that, say you decide early on you really don’t want to go on this dinner date with them. Its going to be hard to call off the date without coming across as an asshole. Its much easier to go on a cheap first date and then simply not go on a second one.
Yet Another Guy says
@CSI
It only takes more time than a coffee date if a man is a casual slob. It takes me at least an hour to get ready for date. If I am going to show up, I am going to do my best to make a good impression, which means that I have to iron clothes, groom my facial hair (I keep a very short, professional beard), shave my neck, manscape, shower, and get dressed. I then have to get in my car and drive to the place where we are meeting for coffee. I am not going to go through all of that for a 30-minute coffee date.
With that said, I use my process for every type of first date, not just dinner dates. I am not meeting a woman in person unless I know that I can hold a conversation with her. I learned that lesson the hard way.
I rarely do dinner on a first date these days. I almost always do wine evening dates because I want to know if there is mutual desire to break the touch barrier, and wine is the right social lubricant for the job. I am not looking for a friend. I am looking for a lover who I can turn into a girlfriend. If mutual desire to break the touch barrier is not there on the first date, mutual attraction is not strong enough to warrant a second date.
KK says
YAG,
I know you probably think I like giving you a hard time, but I remember when you first started commenting on here you were really upset that your potential dates were turning you down because you were recently separated (or divorced). Several of us tried explaining it to you to no avail. But your comments change rapidly and that’s what we were trying to get you to see. Yesterday (?) you said you didn’t want a relationship and that it wasn’t worth the effort. You could take care of your own sexual needs like you did for 10 years. Now, you’re saying you want a lover you can turn into a girlfriend.
Do you see now why we don’t want to get involved with recently separated / divorced men. You’re not even sure what you want from one day to the next. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, by the way. But maybe some casual dating until you get clear on what you really want could save you and others time and grief.
Yet Another Guy says
@KK
I believe that the problem lies in the difference between how men and women view dating. Men can be exclusive with a woman without the emotional component. That is the part in which I have zero interest. By that, I am not referring to the emotions we share when we are together. It means that I have zero interest in being the guy on which she unloads when her day has not gone as she had planned. I do not want to sit there for hours and listen to a woman “talk out” her problems. I did that for the better part of two decades, and I no longer have the stomach for it. It is annoying to guys. We do not want to be heard. We want to find a way to eliminate the source of what is causing us discomfort and move on. It is like women just want to wallow in it. I would rather be celibate for the rest of my life than to have to deal with this part of being with a woman.
Here is the problem as I see it when it comes to dating. The few women that I have dated more than a couple of weeks seem to be believe that is okay to do what I discussed above. It is an immediate turnoff. Professional women tend to internalize everything that is said or done to them at work as being the result of being a woman in the workplace. Most guys see being treated unfairly in the workplace as part of the game. We may not like it, but we suck it up and move on. We do not need to talk about it for hours on end.
L says
As a woman, I generally prefer after work drinks. This way if there is no connection, small time investment. If we like each other, then we can order apps at the bar and turn it into a light dinner. Also, if I know there won’t be a second date, i will generally pay for half the bill. I have no desire for a guy I’m not interested in to buy my drinks. Lunch works too – it is cheaper than dinner – but you have to work near each other.
That said, my current boyfriend took me to dinner at an upscale restaurant. I definitely appreciated the thought and planning that went into it – and all of our subsequent dates. I think a guy who takes you to dinner is, generally speaking, more confident and less likely to be a player/more likely to be looking for a relationship.
KK says
L said, “That said, my current boyfriend took me to dinner at an upscale restaurant. I definitely appreciated the thought and planning that went into it — and all of our subsequent dates”.
I’m glad you said that, L! : )
Part of the point I was trying to make is that if we look at what first dates resulted in relationships, what was the common denominator. If a man is looking for a relationship, it’s to his benefit to make more of an effort.
YAG, I think your strategy has been ineffective because you’ve been dating like someone looking for a relationship when you’re not. The simplest way to solve this, is to put it right there on your profile. Say what you are and aren’t looking for. Some of your comments contradict each other but from what I can tell, you’re looking for someone to date casually, possibly exclusively if sex is involved, but have no desire for anything serious or long term. Although it will narrow your search, it will help you to ultimately get what you want from someone open to the same thing.
Stacy2 says
is that if we look at what first dates resulted in relationships, what was the common denominator
My experience has been exactly the same. Every single relationship.
L says
KK, yes it is so worth reflecting on. I have never had a coffee date result in a relationship. Too little effort, too much of the “next” mentality. And as a woman, I have found that men who don’t pay (often) are also not looking for anything serious. I also am less likely to give a non-payer a second date – especially if it is an inexpensive bill.
Of my longer term relationships post divorce, three started with drinks at a nice place, 1 started with lunch at a nice place and my most recent started with dinner. I prefer to drive (with OLD it is safer, plus no expectations of coming inside). The trend I have been watching out for though is planning. Men who are emotionally unavailable and non commital – even if you are exclusive – don’t spend much time planning and don’t keep weekends open for you in the same way. A well planned date tells you volumes. So, if dates #2 and 3 aren’t showing planning and effort, no matter how attractive the guy is or how good on paper he looks, I lose interest.
Right before i met my boyfriend, I had met a guy who seemed nice, very attractive, very fit, similar background. He did not plan dates and expected me to split the bill and kept suggesting places convenient for him and not me. Texted and didn’t call. While he kept in contact, effort was lacking. Around then, I met my boyfriend who is not as physically attractive (but handsome) but he planned dates, paid, went out of his way for me and it was so clear to me that he was a great partner. He was also cconsistent – called in addition to texts etc. If men make an effort and show it, he stands out. ultimately, this letter is about effort. Why don’t enough men show effort?
Yet Another Guy says
@L
You do know that some men can be completely into you and not plan dates very well? To judge a man’s commitment or emotional availability based on his ability to plan and execute dates is a fool’s errand. I have never been much of a planner. In fact, I hate planning. I plan enough to give a date structure, and let the rest get happen. I do not have an itinerary when I go on vacation. I prefer to be spontaneous. It is part of my personality type. You need to spend time reading about the 16 Myers-Briggs personalities. It will be an eye-opening experience for you.
Yet Another Guy says
By the way, the guys who you assume are emotional available because they can plan and execute dates generally have personality types that end in the letter “J,” which stands for judging. I have personality type that ends in the letter “P.” I am a perceiver, and perceivers like things to be much more fluid than judgers.
Yet Another Guy says
Judging versus Perceiving
http://changingminds.org/explanations/preferences/judging_perceiving.htm
Yet Another Guy says
@KK
I actually had language in my profile stating that I am looking to date a woman exclusively without the emotional heaviness of a long-term commitment. I grew tired of fielding questions as to how one can be exclusive without wanting a long-term commitment. They are not synonymous; however, most women assume that exclusivity only occurs as part of a long-term commitment.
With that said, yes, I am looking to be exclusive, so I that I can have an activity partner with whom I can have STD/head-trip-free sex. What is so wrong with that arrangement?
L says
YAG, planning dates is one of several indicstors of emotional availability, not the only one. In general though, a man who is excited to see you and impress you will have a basic plan for a date. I don’t expect every second to be planned – just show me you are thinking about it and make a reservation ahead of time and think about what you want to do afterwards. If we are going to the movies, buy the tickets ahead of time and pick seats. Choose a restaurant early so you can get a reservation at a great place on Saturday night. It isn’t hard but it shows effort and that you’re thinking about me.
Yet Another Guy says
@L
That makes more senses. It is difficult being a guy in the dating world. Our needs are primitive compared to what women need to feel desired. KK is a on a tear about my sending mixed signals. I do not see what I am doing as sending mixed signals. I see what I am doing as being a guy.
Yet Another Guy says
*more sense
KK says
YAG,
I would know exactly what you meant. Maybe a better way to say it would be, “Looking for a friend with benefits to be exclusive with”.
Yet Another Guy says
@KK
“Looking for a friend with benefits to be exclusive with”.
The problem with the term FWB is that there is very little friendship in most FWB arrangements. They are more like steady booty call arrangements. That is not what I want. I want most of a relationship minus having to pretend that I am a hairy woman when she needs to “talk it out.” I do not want to have to listen to a woman talk for hours about her feelings or whatever nonsense occurred during the day that she did not like. I guess that this state is what women refer to as being “emotionally unavailable.” Women always complain that men do not listen when they talk. They are absolutely correct. The only way for a man to survive in a long-term relationship without going insane is to learn to nod his head and pretend that he is listening; otherwise, he will just end up with his stomach in knots. Men are not wired to sit there and let a woman talk it out. Quite frankly, if given the choice between celibacy and having to listen to a woman talk it out, I will choose celibacy. Sex is not worth my mental and physical health.
Stacy says
YAG,
Sorry to tell you….dating a woman exclusively cannot come without the ’emotional heaviness’ of a long term commitment. I don’t think you like the phrasing, but what you are really looking for is a Friends with Benefits situation but you would just like her to only have sex with you.
I think a better strategy is for you to find a woman you can be exclusive with who is not primarily emotional. There are lots of women like that (including myself). I do not ‘unload’ emotionally on my boyfriend and I certainly don’t go on for hours on emotional rants. However, like every other woman (more or less), I have my moments when I need him to listen for whatever reason.
You can’t expect to get what you want without giving something in return. Why would a woman see you worthy of having sex with just you if you find it beneath you to be a sympathetic ear? And most women I know do not go to the extremes (talking off your head for hours about emotional issues) and I know a lot of women. So it’s unrealistic if you expect to date a woman (exclusively) and expect her to be satisfied with just you if you basically don’t want her talking to you about any of her problems/issues/challenges/hopes/dreams, etc.
And as an aside, I saw you told Stacy2 earlier that you don’t want sex more than the women you meet. I guarantee you that really GREAT and fulfilling sex will change your mind.:) I think your past marriage has tainted you more than you realize.
Buck25 says
KK,
I’m gonna disagree with you slightly. When I was doing the online thing, I always viewed that initial meet-up as a part of the getting acquainted process, rather than as a proper date. Even with the email to phone to meet up evolution, there were two problems that couldn’t be solved without meeting face to face. One obviously, was the women who deliberately misrepresented their appearance; there’s no way to be sure short of meeting. In fairness, these were a small minority (less than 10% of meet ups) but still annoying, if you’re then paying for drinks for someone you’d have had ZERO interest in, had she been honest). The greater problem, with the ones who looked like their pictures, were who they represented themselves to be, etc. was chemistry (or more specifically lack of it, on one side, the other or both). There was simply no way,(from a male point of view anyway), to ascertain whether there was any chemistry on either side without meeting in person. My experience with that was close to Evan’s figure; only about 25 %, maybe a little less, of meet ups revealed enough mutual chemistry to try for a second date. What I usually did was set a meeting for drinks before the dinner hour, at a place that had an atmosphere suitable for conversation, and served appetizers/dinner, but leave the rest of my evening open. If it didn’t work out either party could have an early (and easy) out by simply looking at a watch and “Look at the time! Gotta run!” I found I usually knew within 15 minutes of a first meet up if it was headed that way. On the lesser number where everything was going well, it was easy enough to simply ask, “Would you like to continue over some appetizers/dinner?”. I found this worked smoothly and well, in most cases where my new acquaintance and I found each other suitable dinner companions, as well as saving some awkwardness on both sides if we didn’t hit it off. I wasn’t as worried about the expense (don’t have to be) but I can see where that part of it is a concern for guys who have to spend money from their limited dating budget buying dinner for a meet up “date” only to find there isn’t any mutual chemistry and then having to endure two or so miserable hours with a woman they have no interest in ever seeing again. So no, in general, I don’t think we guys owe any woman we met online a dinner on a first meet up, unless things just click to the extent we wish to offer it after drinks. I don’t think that’s “lack of effort”; I think it’s common sense, especially in the majority of instances that don’t really go well, while permitting us to offer her dinner if it does. After all, should the timing not work out (perhaps she had other plans), we can still make it up to her on date number 2 (which to me, is the first “real date” anyway.)
Nissa says
I’m with Buck25 on this one. Seeing a person face to face is vastly different than what one gets from a picture or over the phone. The guy wants to know if the woman’s pictures were from 10 years ago and if she really is physically appealing. Women want to see if the man is dressed appropriately, makes effort and get a feel for his personality. I’ve never gotten as much information from a phone call as I do in five minutes in person. I might enjoy a phone call, but if I’m not minimally interested in a man physically, it will never translate into something more.
Barbara says
L
Congrats on finding and choosing a great guy! I hope to be in your shoes soon!
Why don’t enough men show effort?
I’ve learned from Evan that men show effort when they really want to be with you and they know they will lose you unless they step up.
From my point of view as a woman, it’s not a man’s job to show me effort. It’s my job to refuse to date men who don’t.
L says
Barbara, I think that is right – a man who wants to be with oh will show effort. However, with OLD a lot of decent people get jaded and as EMK notes, the incentives are to not put in a lot of effort for a woman at first. I think effort should be obvious for date #2.
It honestly took me a while to really develop the confidence to send a man packing if he wasn’t showing me enough effort. At my age (38) and my status as a single parent, it was hard to meet decent guys. A lot of men my age are married. If they are single, they want a younger women to start a family. Men a bit older than me are perpetual bachelors (generally emotionally unavailable commitment phobes with spotty relationship histories) or recently divorced (emotionally unavailable and financially stretched). So finding an emotionally available man looking for a relationship with enough resources and energy to plan dates is like finding a needle in a haystack.
Good guys are out there – I didn’t believe it until I swiped right and met my guy. Reading this blog plus the book The Case For Settling (I think that’s the title) were very eye opening and even then, it took me years to find someone who was worthy of being my partner. (I don’t say that from the sense of entitlement – I mean that it took a long time to find a kind, intelligent, emotionally available, financially secure, relationship oriented man in his 40s).
Barbara says
L
So finding an emotionally available man looking for a relationship with enough resources and energy to plan dates is like finding a needle in a haystack.
Agreed. I’m 55 and divorced after a 22-year marriage. I’ve dated several men since I left my ex in 2014. Our divorce came through in 2015.
After going out on more dates than I can count and having a few unhealthy relationships, I’ve found a man like you describe–except we’ve only been dating six weeks; so it’s too soon to tell if he will claim be as his significant other.
However, our relationship is different than any I’ve ever had, thanks to following Evan’s advice. I met him one of the few times I decided not to use the 2/2/2 rule–we went on our first date after a single phone call and he took me to dinner, not out for drinks.
For me, he is a 7 in chemistry/looks and a 10 in compatibility, as Evan suggests. Through following Evan’s advice and that of an article (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-love/201205/how-develop-your-attraction-the-right-person) by the author of “Deeper Dating,” Ken Page, I’m learning to be attracted to a person who has beautiful inner qualities and to avoid “hot” charismatic men.
The man I’m dating is not jumping into a committed relationship with me. When he wanted to have sex, I asked him if he’d keep seeing me if we did and he said “I can’t promise that.” I thanked him for his honestly and we’ve just continued to hang out, joke around, make out, and get to know one another.
Again following Evan’s advice, I never call him or make plans. He calls me the day after each date, calls a few times during the week just to talk, and has made plans for every weekend since we met–except the weekend that occurred after I told him to stop contacting me because he wasn’t looking for a serious relationship like I was.
Fortunately, he kept texting me anyway. I finally realized my old pattern of instant-commitment has never worked; so I needed to learn to take it slow and judge this man on his efforts–something I’d never done before. So I agreed to see him again.
He’s never been married, which I could have sees as a red flag. But the way I look at it, I’ve been married twice–once for a few months when I was very young and once for 22 years. Overall, both were unhappy experiences. So being married is no guarantee of being wise in love.
I was the opposite–clueless in love, until I found Evan’s blog and read “Why He Disappeared” and “Finding the One Online.” In fact, the man I’m dating wondered why I hadn’t been able to make a 22 year marriage work. So we could both judge each other based on our past love lives but have decided, instead, to get to know the people we are today. When I asked why he kept pursuing me when I’d told him to to, he said he figured since I’d been married for 22 years, I just didn’t know how dating works.
Without telling him, I’m giving him eight weeks to claim me. If he doesn’t, I’m cutting him off for good. But, even in that case, because of him, I know I’m capable of meeting a man like him–someone who matches the type of person I am and who’s confident, sensitive, gentle, self-reflective, masculine, humble, mentally healthy, and who sees me as I am and likes the real me, not a person I’m pretending to be so he’ll keep liking me.
I had to become the person I am now to find a man like him attractive and to treat him the way he deserves to be treated. In turn, even though he hasn’t claimed me yet, he treats me like meeting me was one of the best things that has ever happened to him.
He still asks for sex whenever we make out, however, and I keep saying no because we’re not a couple yet, and he keeps asking for another date anyway.
Stay tuned.
ScottH says
Barbara- Sounds very promising. Thanks for sharing. If I may suggest, since he seems to be doing so many things right, maybe be a little flexible on your 8 week goal, like 8.5-9 weeks.
Barbara says
ScottH
Barbara- Sounds very promising. Thanks for sharing. If I may suggest, since he seems to be doing so many things right, maybe be a little flexible on your 8 week goal, like 8.5-9 weeks.
Thanks. Since you’re a guy, I’ll take your suggestion because what can it hurt. I feel like such a grown up dating a man for as long as I have this one without jumping into a crash and burn short-lived relationship or, worse, marriage.
Buck25 says
Barbara, I’m gonna co-sign with Scott on this one. It might not fit anybody’s preconceived time frame but given all the circumstances you describe, I say give him a bit longer to finish coming around to claiming you as a girlfriend (I assume he wouldn’t keep dating you, knowing where your boundaries are, for this long if he wasn’t leaning pretty far that way). I’m assuming you two are already exclusive, of course.
By the way, someone who waits until later in life to get married for the first time isn’t necessarily afraid of commitment. For example, I had a woman friend, who was in her late forties and had never married. Wasn’t for lack of opportunity; she was an extremely attractive woman with a great personality, who never lacked for eligible men to date, yet she rarely kept one for more than a couple of months, before dropping him. It’s telling that several of her female friends were quite delighted to marry some of her “cast-offs”. She’s tell every close friend who inquired, that she knew exactly what she wanted, she wasn’t going to settle down, let alone get married, until she found the right guy, and she’d know it when she met him…and she did! She finally met the right guy, and this time, everything clicked. They got engaged in less than six months, married within a year, and some 20 years later are still happily married. Makes me wonder if some of those who wait for what they know they want (provided they actually do know), aren’t smarter that some of us who try committing one, two, three (or more) times, and screw it up each time.
Barbara says
Buck25
I’m assuming you two are already exclusive, of course.
No we aren’t–at least I’m not. I don’t know what he’s doing.
I’m following Evan’s advice to not take down my dating profile and to keep going on dates with other men until this one claims me. Until he does that, he’s not my significant other; we’re just two people dating.
This is not how I operated when other online dating men seems promising. I hid or took down my profile and acted like he was “the one” and, in every case, I soon found out he wasn’t.
So, since meeting the current man, I’ve continued to message a minimum of two men per day. I haven’t asked him whether or not he’s actively dating other women but I do know his profile is still up. When he goes a day or two without calling, he tells me what he’s been up to, but I never ask him to do that.
Also, the week when I told him to stop contacting me, after texting me a couple of times, he noticed that I’d viewed his profile on Our Time, a.k.a. Senior People Meet. I’d done it totally by mistake because the way that crazy site and other People Media sites are set up is really confusing. So it appeared that an old message by him was a new one and when I tried to open it, the site took me to his profile. That’s when he wrote me on the site and said “I see you viewed my profile. Do you want to meet?” and I agreed.
Since then, I haven’t viewed his profile again because I don’t want to appear that I’m checking up on him. Based on his run down of his daily affairs, I suspect he’s not seeing any one else because he doesn’t have the time to–unless he’s been lying about his activities, which is highly doubtful.
I haven’t gone on any other dates (except a 30 minute regrettable one last night). But I have been in conversations with other men online. So, once again, regarding your assumption, no we’re not exclusive. But, if I he asked me to be his and took down his profile, I’d gladly say yes and take down mine.
Barbara says
Buck25
I said:
I haven’t gone on any other dates (except a 30 minute regrettable one last night).
This is in defense of 2/2/2: On here, I’ve talked about making the most out of every date and that is my standard modus operandi. But last night’s date showed up reeking of alcohol, creepily invaded my personal space, and spent 20 minutes reciting a monologue about his late wife of 38 years and how, because of her, he would forever be attracted to black women (he was white).
It was one of the few times I didn’t put a man through the 2/2/2 rule vetting process. Unlike what happened with the man I’ve been seeing for the past six weeks, last night’s non-2/2/2 date turned out to be a disaster. It was, hands down, my worst date ever. I threw caution to the wind and met the man at a restaurant after a few messages the same day. Big mistake. I had to duck into the bathroom to call my teenage daughter and ask her to call me and act like a major emergency had happened so I’d have an excuse to run out of the restaurant. I kid you not.
I hope the guy gets the help he needs but I was under no obligation to endure him last night.
Barbara says
Well, six weeks and done and not down about it because I’ve followed Evan’s advice. The guy I’d been dating uncharacteristically texted me last night:
“How are you?”
Wondering why he’d reverted to texting instead of his usual phone call and not wanting to engage in a conversation by text, I kept my reply brief:
“Great!”
“Anything else?” he asked.
“Too much to text.”
Then I pulled up an article by Evan that I’ve bookmarked for just such occasions (https://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/dating-tips-advice/how-much-time-you-should-give-a-guy-to-commit-before-you-quit/) and reread this:
There’s a huge difference between giving a guy six weeks to choose you over the other women he’s dating… and to be a sucker for hanging around when you’re merely (and clearly) his “once a week” girl.
So, realizing, that the guy was suddenly deescalating his efforts in our relationship instead of escalating them like Evan says a man does when he wants to be your boyfriend, I called the guy and basically said, as Evan suggests in the article (and while I stood at my computer literally reading these lines from the article):
“Hey, it’s been fun getting to know you, but I get the sense that we’re not on the same page. I need a man who is looking for a relationship and you don’t seem to be that guy. No hard feelings, but I’m going to go find that guy. Best of luck in your search. Take care of yourself.” I told him that this time was really it.
The guy replied that he was looking for someone to hang out with to replace friends he’d lost and that I had been very important to him at a time in his life when he needed to meet me and couldn’t we still be friends since that’s what he wanted.
“No,” I said, “Because that’s not what I want. I’m looking for a lover and friend to spend the rest of my life with. ” I could clearly hear Evan saying, from the same article:
If he expresses no interest in escalating the intensity of the relationship… That’s EXACTLY the relationship that HE wants! Low-intensity. Low-pressure. Low commitment. Low drama. He wins. You lose. He’s content. You’re not.
The guy asked me if I was angry (as if the idea that I would be was strange). I said I was (because I was, although I wasn’t loud or bitter about it). But, I said, I wasn’t angry at him. I was angry at me for mismanaging my expectations. This was true. He wasn’t a bad person, I realized. He just had different goals than me, which was the conclusion I’d come to when I broke it off with him the first time.
I told him that, this time, if he contacted me, I didn’t want to be rude, but I just would not reply.
Basically, we ended at that. I deleted him from my contacts. Put him on my phone’s auto-reject list. Blocked him on Our Time/Senior People Meet.
To me, encountering him has been a victory on many levels: I’m not depressed about THE END. I cut him loose after giving the almost-relationship a reasonable time. I saw the signs that we were going nowhere, paid attention to them, and, for the most part, made a graceful exit.
Evan Marc Katz says
Bravo!
CaliforniaGirl says
Good luck with that!!
I had to end a 5 months relationship with a man who couldn’t commit. He behaved like a boyfriend but never called me his gf and I never met his friends or family (he met my friends). For the last couple of months he would make plans with his friends and would tell me last minute that he is busy this weekend or he has a dinner with a friend. He stopped planning any dates and only wanted me to come over. When I broke up with him, he swore he doesn’t see anyone else but cannot let me into his life because of his previous bad relationships. I just stopped answering his texts and calls and they ceased after few weeks. Still painful and disappointing..Don’t wait more than 2 months, I made a mistake to make it to 5!
Mr_B says
If you aren’t willing to have sex after 6 weeks of dating, I hope you are splitting the costs and coming up with entertainment options.
Yet Another Guy says
@L
So finding an emotionally available man looking for a relationship with enough resources and energy to plan dates is like finding a needle in a haystack.
I find this attitude among single mothers to be perplexing. Guys who are divorced and stretched financially are stretched because a single mother is receiving a huge chunk of their after tax compensation every month. I would think that a single mother who is receiving child support and possibly alimony would understand this predicament. Just because a man does not have a ton of money to pay for dates does not mean that he is not a good man. Most divorced men who do not have a lot of money to spend on dates do not have money specifically because they are good men who pay child support and alimony religiously. The check is always there before the 1st. I pay a sizable percentage of my after tax income per month in child support and other associated costs such as health insurance coverage and medical co-pays. Thankfully, my ex also earns a good salary or the amount would be even larger. States do not base child support on what a couple spends every month. They base child support on what a couple earns every month. That penalizes men like me who came out of marriages where we lived on fraction of our income.
L says
YAG – I have expenses too as a single parent. I contribute the lions share of my kids’ support. But if a guy invites me out he should pay. If I invite out I pay. I am happy to do so. But doing the uncomfortable check dance is awkward. I doubt an extra $25 or so breaks the bank. No need to pick anywhere fancy – pick an affordable place. I don’t order the most expensive thing on the menu. I follow your cues. I only order an appetizer if you suggest one. I stick to one glass of one unless you suggest a second. But I do want to feel special on a date and I am happy to reciprocate if we go out for drinks afterwards or go out again.
My current boyfriend is a single dad, by the way, he pays sometimes and I pay sometimes.
ames says
The fellas seem to really be angry that women look somewhat different from photos. I’ve had it happen several times when meeting men, to the point I struggled to pick them out of the crowd when arriving to the date. I think people generally don’t realize they’re that much balder, older or heavier than their photos. I stick around to see if there’s a connection and we have things in common. This whole vibe of “I spend money therefore I deserve hot person” really creeps me out. Total cave man vibe. And ladies, if he buys drinks or dinner, insist on buying him an ice cream or coffee. Do it with a smile and make sure he understand it’s your nurturing personality driving that and not a tit for tat so you’re not beholden. Believe the best of each other and invest a little bit.
Buck25 says
Ames,
When I was doing the OLD thing, I remember one woman who started her profile essay with.”If I meet you, and you don’t look like your profile photo, you agree to buy me drinks until you do!” If I ever go online again, I think I might use that one myself. I always tried to have photos no more than six months old and labeled them as to the date they were taken. It’s not hard, on any site that lets one caption photos. Believe me when I tell you that men certainly have no monopoly on using photos ten years (or more) old, and at least fifty pounds lighter. If there was any way to require all online photos to have a time and date stamp in the picture (most cameras other than cell phones have the capability, after all), I for one would be all for it. It’s the nature of the medium,; on the internet anyone can represent themselves to be almost anything they want. As long as that’s the case, there will be plenty of both genders lying to the other….and to themselves.
Chance says
I don’t know Buck25, if you put that in your profile, that might be a tough egg to unscramble lol. I understand the desire to do so, however.
Buck25 says
Chance,
Actually, I’m not so sure about that. Right before I quit, I had a pretty challenging, (and pretty snarky) profile out there, and I had a line in there that was a humorous reference to “What you see is what you get” with a pretty clear implication I expected the same in return. I wiped that profile when I took it down, so can’t remember the exact wording; but for what it’s worth, that profile, compared to everything else I used before, was money, in terms of initial and reply contacts from women I’d actually want to date. Hands down the best results I ever had online. I think you can get away with a lot, (I know I do in real life), if you’re cocky as hell, and say it in a funny way.
Yet Another Guy says
My profile photos are less than a year old, but I need to shoot new ones because I am actually lighter than I was when I shot those photos.
Buck25 says
YAG, if that were me, I’d definitely get be getting some new pics up; everything helps, but nothing tops good visuals.
Lia says
To Karl R:
As always I love the anecdotal lesson. I admit I look for your posts. You are a self a aware man and it shows. I remember years ago when I took a long look at my past relationships to see if I could discern why they didn’t work. I found that the one single common denominator in every relationship I had was… me. If I wanted something different then I would have to change how I did things, the choices I made, and the beliefs that I held on to that were not working. I read things about men that were written by men because I felt that men knew much more about men than women did. I seek to understand and I appreciate the clear, analytical comments that you post.
FYI I typically just skip Stacy2’s comments because I have learned that too much eye rolling makes my head hurt.
To Buck 25:
That line “If I meet you and you don’t look like your profile photo, you agree to buy me drinks until you do” is a GREAT line!!! I had a friend who wrote, “If your age range does not include your own age, don’t write to me. If you won’t date someone your age, why should I?” She got a lot of comments about that and several men changed their age range because of it.
Christine says
I am now happily married to a man I met online after hundreds of dates over eight years. (Reading ‘Why He disappeared’ changed my mindset btw and was fantastically helpful to me). I strongly feel the ‘first date’ is not a date but a ‘meeting’ where you discover if there is attraction/compatibility etc. Why would you want to sit through dinner with someone who it turns out is definitely not who you are looking for? It should be a couple of drinks over a shortish time, then if he is interested and is a quality guy, he will ask you for a dinner date. If he doesn’t then both of you have lost nothing and can move on to the next person. Simples!
Yet Another Guy says
Why should a first date/meeting by short? If a meeting is going well, why end it after a drink? I have no time limit when I meet a woman for drinks; however, I have encountered women who cut a date short after a glass of wine who were amazed that I did not contact them for a second date. They thought things were going to so well. My reply has always been, “If things were going so well, why did you leave?” To me, that is playing games.
Mike says
Women only have themselves to blame that men don’t want to take them on dinnerdates anymore. There are women out there that will use men to get a free meal, also known as Tinder meal tickets. No man want to risk being used like that, so they will keep it cheap and casual instead.
Barbara says
Not the men I date. There will always be people who take advantage of others. This is true of men and women. You can’t blame all for the bad behavior of some.
L says
Barbara, sorry the relationship didn’t work out. :(. In my experience a lot of those guys who have been single all their lives are tough to get to commit. Not always of course – there are always outliers – but most of them are commitment phobes and follow relationship patterns as you describe.
A man who wants a commitment will claim you fairly early on. If he really likes you he wants to make sure no one else will have you. If he hasn’t done that by 3 months, it is time to cut him off. If men like you but aren’t sure about you beyond a companion to hang out with every so often, they will reach out to you and see you when it is convenient for them, but they won’t prioritize seeing you and talking to you. After a while, they start canceling and it becomes obvious that they aren’t shifting things in their lives to make sure they have time to see you.
Good for you for cutting your guy off and reading he signals correctly. Don’t be mad at yourself! You have him a chance and when it was clear that he was stringing you along, you confronted the situation rather than focus on positive signs to trick yourself into thinking he was going to commit.
ScottH says
Barbara- I agree with L. Good for you for cutting him off. He was clearly using you.
Barbara says
L and ScottH
L: Don’t be mad at yourself! You have him a chance and when it was clear that he was stringing you along, you confronted the situation rather than focus on positive signs to trick yourself into thinking he was going to commit.
ScottH: Good for you for cutting him off. He was clearly using you.
I’m glad I cut it off too but I’m not at mad at myself or him. I don’t think he was maliciously using me. I think he just wants what he wants: a friend he could have in his life on his terms. I want the same thing: a man I can have in my life on my terms. The difference is, unlike him, a central part of my terms is having that man be my significant other. Our goals were different, that’s all. I don’t see this as a character flaw on his part.
However, given his past experiences and his current behavior, the idea that he’s afraid of commitment isn’t far-fetched, L. But he isn’t a bad man. In fact, he’s one of the nicest and most sincere people I’ve ever met.
Still, I am very proud of myself for moving on. Not long ago, I would have held on for who knows how long because he hit so many of the marks I was looking for in a man. I would have ignored the big one that he didn’t hit–wanting to be my significant other and showing it.
L says
Barbara, your attitude is great! I have met wonderful men who are afraid of commitment. It is something within them that keeps them from fully attaching but I agree – they can be great guys which is why it can be so hard to let go. I hope the next guy you find is a keeper!
Buck25 says
Barbara,
Sorry to hear it worked out that way, but given what he told you toward the end, it was clearly time to drop him and move on. Basically, you gave him enough of a chance; enough time and he pretty much showed his real intentions
Mrs Happy says
The OP is in a terrible place of not being the person with the power to initiate in the early stage of dating, and wanting control over venue, but realistically having limited control.
She asks how to convert an invitation for drinks, into an invitation for dinner.
I’ve been thinking about this all day since reading the post, and I don’t think it’s polite to try to do this (convert by her direct request), primarily because the man is initiating and paying.
I say this despite rarely having gone on drinks or coffee dates as 1st dates (I don’t like coffee or drinking) and having almost always gone out to dinner for the 1st date…. but that’s because that was the invitation issued to me. I have dated a lot.
I agree with the people who say, coffee dates are suboptimal with respect to making an effort. The few I’ve been on felt like a screening process, and tended to be suggested by men who were jaded by the whole dating experience, and it really showed. I think, looking back, those men were tired. I’ve thus not been energetic about these men while we have been together on the date, and so the coffee date hasn’t led anywhere. I didn’t dress up or make up as much as I would have for an evening out, so I wasn’t feeling as sexy, they similarly didn’t dress up, the flirtation vibe thus wasn’t there as much. They were perhaps more cynical than the other men. I feel for them, especially having read in these comments about the reality of the cost of dating, for men. I understand why a coffee seems a reasonable option for the man who is paying for numerous dates. I totally understand that from the man’s point of view, for the purposes of screening, a drink rather than dinner is preferable.
Though I recall one man I went on 2 dates with, who was very rich but obviously wary of being taken advantage of for his money, and for our 2nd date we went on a relaxed walk through a beautifully situated enormous public garden park. We strolled for 1-2 hours, it cost nothing, and we talked and got to know each other. This to me seems preferable than sitting in a coffee shop, if money is restricted. Gosh it was useful walking side by side because the conversation flowed while we walked and looked around at the plants, and we spoke of much more in depth topics, because we weren’t looking at one another.
I have never in my entire life been asked to a pub for the 1st date. I totally agree with Stacy2, I despise pubs, they are grimy, noisy, smelly, they have icky food, usually too loud or yucky music, and are dank, unpleasant places to be. All that undoubtably impacts on the vibe of the outing.
OP, I don’t know why you are being asked to pubs and I wasn’t. Maybe I knew the men better before the 1st date? Maybe I somehow unconsciously let them know I wasn’t likely to enjoy a pub or coffee (I can’t recall explicitly stating such, but people pick up on all sorts of things). Probably I also screened for more positive, interested men, without appreciating I was doing such.
My one caveat is, if you are living in Ireland, pub dates seem to be where it’s all at. Thankfully I am nowhere near Ireland!
Good luck.
Huarg says
I would describe classic dating scene as prostitution. Man is the customer, woman is the seller.
The entire classic dating scene is about humiliating males. The traditional idea is; females have an inherent value while males dont, so males need to prove their worth in order to reach the same level of that inherent value. So they have to initiate relationship, pick up her, pay for dates, drive her home, be a chivalrious gentleman, kind, polite, accepting whatever she is or she does… etc.
Females usually say; it is not about money, we want to feel desired and valuable.
Thats also what men want. It is not about money (well, in serial date culture it may be an issue for most males because they will end up paying lots of money in total). In a relationship both male and female are valuable, not only the female. By expecting males to pay for you, you simply tell them “im so valuable, prove yourself you worth my time”, and that’s disgusting.
I find it extremely humiliating and an insult to me if a female expect me to pay for her expenses. Im not there to make you feel like princess or a goddess, im not going to worship you, im not trying to impress you with all that romantic nonsense in the beginning of the relationship. I’m trying to get to know you.
Females feel they are entitled to any men’s money and effort, and men are stupid. Call it romance, call it “men should be men”, call it courtesy… whatever you call it, it will not change the fact that this is prostitution and an insult.
Some will say “man up and pay”, i say “man up and dont pay”. Because paying is easy, not paying requires courage. And this payment not only about money, it is about the entire dating scene, dont make any form of payment. Stop feeding the instutie of prostitution.
Evan Marc Katz says
You sound very courageous, Huarg…not to mention sad, lonely, and bitter.
Tron Swanson says
When it comes to arguments and debates, I’m more interested in logic than emotion…and what he said sounds very logical, to me. I don’t know what his emotional state has to do with it.
I’m simply baffled by the idea of paying to spend time with a woman via dating. It really does imply that her time/presence is more valuable than mine, which is just ridiculous. I can’t imagine what it must be like to waste a bunch of money on women. I’ve “only” wasted time and effort, luckily.
That said, Evan, I applaud you for defying gender roles and focusing on the emotional context of what he said–even if it was to insult him–which is something that women usually do. Though I may not care about emotion in debates, emotion is very important in our personal lives, and we need to talk more about valuing and protecting men’s emotions.
Evan Marc Katz says
Listen, Tron. If you are happy with the results in your love life, keep doing them. My guess is that men who go on strike from calling, planning, paying for women – men who are more focused on “fairness” than getting results – are probably not getting very good results. There IS a way to do well with women, and it requires not ignoring what women want. You can stake the claim that you refuse to give it to them but that makes you no different than a feminist who feels she doesn’t have to be sweet to you just because it’s “feminine”. Whatever works, man.
Tron Swanson says
Evan,
No, I’m not entirely happy with the results, but I’m also not willing to do things that I’m not comfortable with or don’t believe in.
As for not ignoring what women want…I have no problem with giving women what they want, as long as I also get what I want. But I’m not willing to give them what they want before I get what I want. That, in my experience, tends to be the issue.
Thank you for comparing me to a feminist–culturally speaking, I consider them to be a highly influential group, and I can think of no better model to use. Also, for obvious reason, I sympathize with women who aren’t comfortable with traditional gender roles.
GoWiththeFlow says
Huarg & Tron,
I make more money than everyone in my family and virtually all of my friends. More often than not I wind up picking up all or the majority of the tab when we do things together. My life would be awful lonely and boring if I decided that people were unfairly “devaluing” me as a human being because they expect or want me to cover the majority of expenses.
In many cases, the experience would not happen at all if I didn’t fund it. I gladly do so because it’s the memory of shared friendship, love, and experiences that will make me smile when I’m on my death bed.
Shaukat says
Hi GWTF,
The difference is clear between your example and what the other two posters were talking about. You’re referring to giving freely and happily to the loved ones in your life, not to strangers who you just met. You might change your tune if you were expected to pick up the tab for every person you met online and went on a date with, regardless of the outcome. I realize guys need to suck it up most of the time, but you should at least be aware of the difference between paying for people we love and for first dates.
GoWiththeFlow says
Shaukat,
Here were the statements that I was responding too:
“I find it extremely humiliating and an insult to me if a female expect me to pay for her expenses.”
“I can’t imagine what it must be like to waste a bunch of money on women.”
“In a relationship both male and female are valuable, not only the female. By expecting males to pay for you, you simply tell them “im so valuable, prove yourself you worth my time”, and that’s disgusting.”
These statements are pretty darn expansive. Way beyond “It’s not fun to pay for dates.” Sounds like they don’t want to pay for anything for any female at any time. . . because humiliation, prostitution, and not being valued.
Tron Swanson says
GWTF,
I can’t speak for the others…but, in my case, yes, I don’t see why we should have to spend money on fellow self-sufficient adults. Now, if you’re a couple, I can see pooling money, which is different.
Nissa says
Tron, in the spirit of genuinely helping you to see this from the other side, a first date is an opportunity for both sides to show interest and appreciation.
Women, being in general more open to emotion and usually in charge of how physical the date is likely to be, show interest by physical acts (smiling, touching herself or her date, comments of ‘thank you’ or ‘nice to meet you’. If a woman is to remain in her feminine energy, however, she is mostly limited to reacting to what the man is saying / doing / offering. More than that is often seen as ‘taking a leadership or masculine role’ – often a mood killer that can cause a man to see his date as domineering, critical or controlling.
Men, being in general less open to emotion and generally testing the waters to find the boundary for physical contact, show interest by the physical (small touches but not too much, pulling out a chair, opening a door), but are less likely to use their verbal or emotional skills on a first date. (Not that men can’t, but are less likely to do so in a high pressure situation with a new person). As a result, many men find paying for the date to be an EASY way to show interest. It’s understood, it pleases most women and opens the door (often) to more physical contact. In my opinion, that’s why men do it. Not because women or society demand it. Because it’s EASY, and men like easy just as much as women do .
Huarg says
Women nowadays have financial independance and freedom and they got this by embracing the feminist ideals, by radically opposing the traditional gender roles. But they dont want to get the responsibilities that must come with that power and freedom, like (any form of) paying for men, at least share the expenses. Now it is time for men to embrace this ideals and oppose their traditional gender roles. If men shared their power with women, women will share men’s responsibilities and this can only be achieved if men radically oppose their gender roles.
The traditional idea that female have an inherent value while males not, leads not only to “men pay for dates” thing. This is a huge problem, it even leads to “only men should die in wars, in order to keep women safe”. Do you understand now, how actually important is that? But thats not our topic right now.
Maybe im bitter and lonely maybe not. You can keep on your presumptions and ad hominem attacks, which i dont care because it shows your way of debating, not mine.
Our way of thinking is fundamentally different. Im 27 y old and i only asked out 2 times, other than that ive always been aproached. For me, all women are my friends and i never approach in order to get a relationship, sex, or something special, it is always casual and friendly, nothing more. But i act flirtatious and show attention if i want to. I am not desperate for a relationship or sex. This is entirely different from what traditional relationships are and how they operate, because traditionally, the main reason why men pursue women desperately is they need to be loved and they need female approval, their only chance to have some affection, because they were never allowed to be emotional in all their life and hide their needs and emotions. Your advices may work for vast majority, especially for older generation because they are mostly more traditional than my generation, and i am not trying to debunk you. Im talking for men who doesnt like the current norms and want to change them.
And even if i dont say anything, it will happen and is happening already. A few decades ago noone would dare to mention that women must work and contribute financially, or going dutch for dates, now these are the new topics that everyone can talk about.
It is not about ignoring what women need, it is about men also have their own need list and these should be spoken a bit more loudly.
Evan Marc Katz says
We’ve heard you, Huarg. Since this is a site for smart, strong, successful women who want to find lasting love, you may return to whatever site better caters to your worldview.
GoWiththeFlow says
Huarg,
“But they dont want to get the responsibilities that must come with that power and freedom, like (any form of) paying for men, at least share the expenses”
LOL!!! I’ll be sure to pass your concerns on to my women friends and colleagues who have SAHD’s, paid off their husband’s student loans, totally supported the family while the husbands changed jobs, paid the medical expenses of dads and FILs, financially supported their sons, including putting them through college, and have given cars to grandsons.
Huarg says
Gowiththeflow,
What i have said is only for dating and relationship between men and women. You know, women can also pay for their friends, they can spend for their families, useless but expensive things, even for their pets, but whenever dating scene starts women stop doing that, may not even spend a ten dollars, and expect men to take charge (agency) and responsibilities (paying, drive her home, deciding where to go) with it. These are principles, fundamental logic of traditional dating.
I also paid for both men and women, and they did that too. I bought gifts and received. I helped them and received help. But those were not obligations, or social expectations. If you don’t do that you will not be labeled as “less man” or “loser”. But in a dating scene it seen as an obligation, an unwritten archaic law, and if you deny the rule you might be labeled as “less man”.
“if I didn’t pay, I wouldn’t have a date”. As long as you think that this is the only way to have relationship, to be loved, it will remain as that. But new generations will growing in a different culture and will not think like you. Or they will not think like “i have to pay for women or I will not be loved, I will not have a family” like most men do. I understand it is much more harder to deny gender roles for previous generation, especially for men. But the definition of “woman” has changed a lot, so the definition of “man” will also change dramatically.
GoWiththeFlow says
Huarg,
From one of your other comments:
“Im 27 y old and i only asked out 2 times, other than that ive always been aproached. For me, all women are my friends and i never approach in order to get a relationship, sex, or something special, it is always casual and friendly, nothing more. But i act flirtatious and show attention if i want to. I am not desperate for a relationship or sex.”
So in truth, you’re NOT paying for dates or paying women’s expenses. . .
Huarg says
Very well Mr. Evan, as you wish. What I have said will also benefit those successful women that trying to find their love.
I would like to thank you for not disapproving my comments.
Evan Marc Katz says
You’re welcome, Huarg. Unfortunately, the main way you’re helping women is by reminding them of what they don’t want in a man: a guy who is so focused on fairness that he forgets the importance of chivalry, generosity, and the value of making a woman feel special. It’s not too late for you to change and be more effective with women, however, I suspect you will continue to do what you’re doing and wonder why the only women you get are highly insecure. It’s because they’re the ones who put up with crumbs from men.
shaukat says
It’s because they’re the ones who put up with crumbs from men.
Or it could be because they’re overwhelmed with chemistry and feel a strong connection…or because they have certain feminist beliefs, or any other number of reasons.
I realize in most cases it’s effective for the man to pay, but that statement seems to be a bit of a tautological back flip: stating that high quality women expect men to plan and pay, and then defining a high quality woman as someone who wants to be courted. It becomes true by definition.
Evan Marc Katz says
I suppose that’s a way to look at it. But if high quality women with high self esteem stopped texting aloof men, agreeing to meet them after no courtship and refused to sleep with them until they made it clear they were interested in a relationship, it would seem to me that this would, in fact, be a self-fulfilling prophesy. The women left would be the ones who didn’t have the confidence to say no to men who expect to get laid with a late night text, no phone calls, no dinners and no commitment.
Chance says
To shaukat’s point: I’ve noticed the terms “high quality woman” and “high quality man” being tossed around quite a bit here by a number of commenters, and the whole concept is BS. A “high quality” man/woman is whatever people want him/her to be based on the traits that are important to them. It’s a tool that is used to shame the other party into compliance (e.g., “A high quality person would do this for me”, “I expect you to do this for me since I’m a high quality person”, etc.).
KK says
Just because you don’t like a concept doesn’t mean it’s B.S. I highly doubt Evan would speak about it if that were the case.
Are you also opposed to other terms like high quality health care or high quality food or high quality restaurant or high quality hotel? Or does it only bother you because you don’t think people should be described that way?
If so, is it okay to say that your doctor’s office has a high quality staff or that your favorite restaurant has a high quality chef? They’re people. What if you were to say that your waitress was terrible, i.e., low quality? Is that wrong or is it simply a fact?
Saying someone is a high quality man or woman doesn’t imply that someone low quality does not have the same worth as a human being. It simply means that in terms of relationships, high quality men and women are the most desired. If you want to make a long detailed list of all the characteristics of high quality men / women, you might eventually have some individual preferences. But the big things like character / integrity and all that implies is at the top.
I’ve NEVER read anything from Evan re manipulating others. His position is to only date quality men and if you discover he’s not quality, cut him loose.
Shaukat says
Hi KK,
The main distinction between dating and your examples, even the ones involving people, is that the latter are all based on the quality of services delivered. I think it’s obvious that, outside of business transactions, it doesn’t make sense to speak that way about people and relationships.
I agree with you that character and integrity are hallmarks of quality. However, I was referring specifically to the manner in which the indicator “high quality” is applied to courtship. In other words, I was simply pointing out that ‘high quality’ can be compatible with a woman who expects a man to plan and pay, but a woman who doesn’t mind initiating and paying shouldn’t be excluded from that category based solely on that criteria.
KK says
Shaukat,
“The main distinction between dating and your examples, even the ones involving people, is that the latter are all based on the quality of services delivered. I think it’s obvious that, outside of business transactions, it doesn’t make sense to speak that way about people and relationships”.
What’s the difference between people you choose to have as friends and those you consciously avoid? Besides personality or common interests, why wouldn’t you become friends with certain people? Isn’t that where character and integrity (or lack thereof) come in? If so, then you are basing your friendships on quality, whether you call it that or not.
KK says
Chance,
Scroll up and read the thread. I responded to every one of your points. We just disagree on the issue. If your goal is to get women on here to give some weight to your opinions, simply provide a credible argument. Women are attracted to and therefore respond to masculine men who are chivalrous. Women are not attracted to and do not respond to men who complain about what is and isn’t fair. Quality men actually care about making the woman they’re interested in feel desired. It isn’t about effectiveness for them, although it’s effective.
Chance says
*scratching my head*
There still seems to be a disconnect. My only point is that the concept of a quality woman or man is whatever you want it to be, but you keep taking about the characteristics of “quality” men/women. My aside was that Evan advises men to pay because it’s effective, not because it’s how the rules should be.
Chance says
KK, again, a “quality” man/woman can be whatever you (generic you) want it to be. As a result, the concept of a “quality” man/woman can be used as a manipulative tool when the term is associated with specific behaviors that are desired by the person using the term. You may prefer for a man to pay for everything just because he’s a man, but the idea that this preference makes you a “quality” woman is highly debatable (just as the idea that a man who is willing to pay is a “quality” man – especially since the only reason he’s doing it is because it’s “effective”).
KK says
Chance, again, I disagree.
Courting, whether you want to do it or not, is effective because it’s part of what a quality man does. If you (generic you) are ONLY doing it for its effectiveness, or in an attempt to manipulate a woman, she’ll find that out.
So yes, it’s true, a man can call, plan, pay, and still turn out to be less than what one would call high quality.
BUT you can’t be a high quality man without first doing those things.
Chance says
We seem to be speaking at cross-purposes because you aren’t directly responding to my points. At any rate, I’ll remind you that Evan advises men to pay (for the first three dates) because it is effective – not because it is even remotely fair.
Jeremy says
Chance, I see your logic, and I see where you would be coming from in thinking that the term “quality” is used to shame or manipulate people into self-serving behavior patterns.
But ultimately the great manipulator is whatever it is that attracts us to certain people. If a beautiful woman to whom you are attracted wants you to behave a certain way, and you find her attractive enough (in whatever physical and behavioral ways you need to be attracted), you’ll jump through her hoops. And she will jump through yours if she feels the same way. I guess my point is that the term “quality” is not the manipulator – attraction is. If you aren’t attracted to the person, who cares what that person thinks “quality” means?
Callie says
Can’t believe I’m agreeing with Chance but . . .
Yeah. That’s totally what Evan recommends. Paying etc is an effective tactic, but it is not necessarily one that reflects quality. Yes one would hope that the reason behind paying is because the man knows a woman would enjoy that and he respects her wishes. But there are definitely many men who will do what’s effective not caring at all what the woman wants, just caring that this is what will get him a date/laid/whatever. He will do whatever it takes and it has absolutely nothing to do with what the woman wants at all.
It’s honestly why I am suspicious of men who pay for dates, who bring flowers, pull out my chair etc. I look for far more than just those qualities when I go on a date with a man. Because so many have been trained “Do these things and a woman will like it”, not “Do these things and CALLIE will like it”. And some have realised “Do these outward displays and then you can otherwise be as big of a jerk as you want, all the women will love you so you can juggle multiple girls and lie to them etc and they’ll still think you’re a gentleman because, you know, flowers”. I have known far too many players (as friends, not as SOs) who have admitted to doing just that.
That being said, if a guy demonstrates beyond those actions his goodness, I don’t mind such displays (I’ve never been crazy about being paid for, but if the guy really wants to do it I’ll let him, normally it’s a split the bill kind of situation). My boyfriend has stopped bringing me flowers because I really don’t like them, but he now brings chocolates (and a specific brand I DO like) because he wants to bring me something (I really don’t need him to bring me anything, but again, he wants to do it, he enjoys it, and I like chocolate so . . .). He also opens doors for me and because I know he is generally kind to all people, again, I don’t mind it.
But yes, I don’t think paying and arranging a date is automatically the sign of a quality man at all.
KK says
Callie,
Upthread, I mentioned that:
“So yes, it’s true, a man can call, plan, pay, and still turn out to be less than what one would call high quality”.
Chance says
Hi Jeremy, I understand what you’re saying…. I agree that people can be more likely to allow themselves to be manipulated when they are very attracted to a person, or that they are more likely to go along with an arrangement that isn’t objectively fair. However, in the context that I am speaking of, I believe people who use the term “quality man” or “quality woman” are being manipulative.
For example, I happen to prefer women who pay their own way, or prefer to alternate paying for dates. I’m going to go out on a limb a say that I believe that the vast majority of millennial men (and probably most Gen-X men) prefer this type of woman as well. However, if men on the general whole began to say that women who expect to be paid for are not of “high quality”, or that men who don’t allow themselves to be used in this manner are “high quality”, then this would be a method of attempting to shame women into complying with the preferences of men, which is a form of manipulation IMO.
Hi Callie, awwww… I bet we agree on a lot more than you are probably comfortable with admitting. Probably enough to make you want to vom a little:) I agree with your post, but you seem to be overly focused on the possibility that a man who pays may not be a good partner. I’m sure you know, but I’ll just add that there are a lot men out there who would make great partners who don’t much like being expected to pay for things just because they’re men.
Shaukat says
KK,
I acknowledged that character and integrity are markers of quality, so yes, aside from common interests, I would want friends who exhibit the qualities associated with such states of being, such as kindness, empathy, loyalty, etc. Those traits, however, have really nothing to do with specific roles established through custom, and they apply equally to both men and women.
Regarding your statement that you ‘can’t be a quality man’ without calling, planning, paying, well, that’s just an assertion backed up by nothing but your own preference and a lifetime of socialization. To provide a counter example, there are some men, charming alpha-men in fact, who believe that quality women are able to detach emotion from sex and don’t need to wait for commitment before sleeping together, and that women who are incapable of this have unrealistic expectations and a lot of emotional baggage. According to this definition, you would not fall into their category of a high quality woman. You would probably respond by stating that you wouldn’t consider men with such beliefs to high quality either, but then that just brings us back to the initial problem. Point being, neither their preferences or your own can objectively establish ‘high quality’ in the context of dating dynamics.
KK says
Shaukat,
What is it though that men who do not want to plan, call, pay and men who ‘next’ women who don’t put out quickly have in common? They’re both selfish. Too selfish to understand that a woman NEEDS to feel special. Too selfish to care that a woman NEEDS to be comfortable and be able to trust him before having sex. As a side note, in all my 42 years, I have never, not once, had a friend cry on my shoulder because she feared losing a great guy because she didn’t sleep with him soon enough.
Do you really think women are losing sleep over these types of guys? Only the women who lowered their standards to go out with them in the first place. Confident women DO NOT CARE. We don’t need to. We can pass them up and choose between the high quality men who are courting us.
GoWiththeFlow says
KK,
“. . . I have never, not once, had a friend cry on my shoulder because she feared losing a great guy because she didn’t sleep with him soon enough.”
Very true for me too. On the other hand, I’ve had several women friends who were upset and hurt because guys disappeared on them after sex and they blamed themselves for sleeping with the guy too soon.
Jeremy says
@Shaukat, what you wrote is undoubtedly true – “quality” is subjective. But is that a revelation and does it matter? We each have our own definition of what we consider to be high quality, and other people’s definitions really don’t matter unless we plan to date/marry those people. Problem is, most people DO plan to date/marry those people.
As it happens, large swaths of the Western female population believe that a high quality man plans and pays…..so a smart man tries to fill that role to optimize his chances with that large swath, unless he feels strongly that doing so violates his personal morality.
Shaukat says
@Jeremy,
I absolutely agree with your point that since a large portion of women like to be courted, it’s an effective strategy for a man to court in order to optimize his chances. However, I’m not so sure that most women with character would automatically label men who are uncomfortable with paying for the entire first few dates as ‘low quality.’ I don’t have any real data to support this, of course, but most of the women who I’ve talked to about this have said that while they might be disappointed when a man they like doesn’t offer to pick up the tab on the first few dates, they would never make blanket judgments about his character based on that.
@KK
We seem to be going in circles, because your definition of ‘high quality’ continues to be based on a tautology. Moreover, everything in your last response was written from the woman’s perspective; your default position seems to be that a man’s job is to calibrate his actions based on what pleases a woman and what you believe a ‘high quality’ woman NEEDS to feel special. We all agree that that’s probably an effective strategy for a man. However, I could easily flip that and state that ‘high quality’ men want women to act in a certain fashion, and that they couldn’t care less if low quality women who insist on being pampered walk away, because they can just take their pick from the independent, fun loving, confident women who enjoy hanging out without being courted. See how that logic works? Also, a good portion of the men who court women aren’t high quality alphas, many are also insecure and needy and feel that they have to pay to earn a woman’s affections.
KK says
Shaukat,
“…because they can just take their pick from the independent, fun loving, confident women who enjoy hanging out without being courted”.
Of course. That’s called friendship, not dating.
“Also, a good portion of the men who court women aren’t high quality alphas, many are also insecure and needy and feel that they have to pay to earn a woman’s affections”.
That’s quite the generalization you made there. In my experience, true alphas are not what I would deem high quality. I think we can also agree that women aren’t swooning over insecure and needy men. Have you ever considered a middle ground? Normal, well adjusted confident men who don’t take issue with courting?
Shaukat says
Sorry KK, I should have stated, “who enjoy hanging out and having sex without being courted,” which means more than just friendship.
KK says
“Sorry KK, I should have stated, “who enjoy hanging out and having sex without being courted,” which means more than just friendship”
It doesn’t mean MORE than just friendship. It means friendship that includes sex. FWB.
KK says
I wanted to add another side note. Whenever I’ve been on a first date and realize I don’t want a second date, I’ve always insisted on paying my own way. From what I’ve been told (albeit anecdotal FWIW), this is a pretty common practice among the ladies. I don’t think the vast majority of women are trying to get strange men to pay for dinner / drinks or whatever. We understand that spending money on a stranger that you’ll never see again isn’t enjoyable and I think most of us are aware of that.
KK says
Chance said,
“*scratching my head* There still seems to be a disconnect. My only point is that the concept of a quality woman or man is whatever you want it to be, but you keep taking about the characteristics of “quality” men/women”.
Yes, simply because MOST women can agree on the basic characteristics of what a quality man is. If you’d like me to elaborate on that list, I’d be happy to oblige. You are correct, though, that anyone’s list of characteristics can be subjective. I believe I already mentioned that.
All the characteristics of a “quality man” won’t be discovered if he can’t make it past the first date. Whether it’s fair or not, MOST women won’t go out on a second date with someone who doesn’t pay. It doesn’t matter if she disqualifies him because he isn’t a “quality man”. If someone asks me out and allows me to split the tab, I’m going to assume he isn’t interested. If he asks me for a second date, I’ll decline. Why? Because I’m going to assume that even though he asked me out again his interest level isn’t high enough. Why waste time with someone who isn’t eager to get to know you better?
You seem to be hung up on what characteristics constitute a man being a quality man. Honestly, it doesn’t matter, as long as you know that most women think a quality man starts out by planning, calling, paying.
Emily, the original says
KK,
Whether it’s fair or not, MOST women won’t go out on a second date with someone who doesn’t pay.
Yep, and his effort will come across as flim-flammy, flaccid. Women like a “man with a plan.” One who plans and pays (at least for the first couple of dates). If a man isn’t interested in dating and courting, if he wants to just hang out and hook up, that’s fine. Obviously, a woman who wants a relationship will have to look elsewhere.
In terms of quality, a woman is supposed to look nice, put on make-up, shave, wear flattering clothes. I’m 45, and, frankly, tired of all the grooming, but men respond to women who doll up. It’s an effective strategy, then, for women to make the effort to look nice, whether I agree with it or not.
Shaukat says
@Emily,
False analogy. Men put in effort to groom and look good before a date as well. I take it they’re not showing up to meet you in sweat pants. It takes no effort to throw on some nice clothes.
Emily, the original says
Shaukat,
I can guarantee you have never spent more than 15 to (tops) 30 minutes getting ready. Nor have you spent hundreds of dollars getting highlights in hair or buying face creams/makeup/stylish clothes. If a woman is going to blow dry, curl and style her hair, plus shower, put on make up, etc. it’s at least an hour. Does she have to do this? No. Just like the man doesn’t have to pay. Again, it’s what’s most effective. As Chance has written over and over again, a woman’s appearance is very important.
GoWiththeFlow says
Shaukat,
The expectation differences in what good grooming is for men and women aren’t even close. That’s the big reason why it costs more money to raise a daughter than a son. The cost of clothing, hair styling ($120 for a highlight, cut, and blowout vs. $20 for a barber shop visit) and generalized appearance care is huge.
Evan Marc Katz says
Reminder: you don’t need a highlight, cut and blowout for every date. Men have to pay $50+ for every date, once or twice per week.
Emily, the original says
No, a blowout is not required for each date. But you always write about what’s effective. There are certain things that women can do to more effective in dating. One of them is making an effort with their appearance.
Emily, the original says
I would be perfectly happy to walk around with a shaved head, no makeup and to never see another razor again, but … I would more than likely have trouble attracting anyone.
Chance says
“As Chance has written over and over again, a woman’s appearance is very important.”
Now Emily, in the way you wrote this, you make it sound like a woman’s appearance is very important to me. In actuality, it isn’t important to me, but I point out how it is very important in general. I wish that weren’t the case, however. Personally, I prefer women who don’t spend a whole lot of time and money on enhancing their appearance, and looks aren’t anywhere near the top of my list of priorities when deciding on a mate. Heh, due to my job, I actually spend quite a bit more on clothes than my partner (makes me feel like a real sass).
Which brings me to my question: if a guy is on a first date, is he then free to say “You don’t look like you spend much time or money on your appearance so do you mind if we go Dutch”? Joking, of course (kind of), but if the reasoning behind why the man should pay is because women spend a lot of money on getting themselves perfectly coiffed, then the women do don’t are getting over on us guys, amirite?? At any rate, my intent on this thread wasn’t to debate the merits of men paying for dates, but rather to shed light on the bogus concept of “quality” men and women.
Emily, the original says
Chance,
Now Emily, in the way you wrote this, you make it sound like a woman’s appearance is very important to me. In actuality, it isn’t important to me, but I point out how it is very important in general. I wish that weren’t the case, however.
Sorry, my bad. Whenever I ask you what a woman can bring to the table, you always write her looks.
I’m not equating a man paying for a date with a woman putting time in to looking good. Nor am I saying they cancel out in terms of cost. (If you remember, I advocated for a cheap first “meet-n-greet” date that was a drink or coffee.) I am simply pointing out that women also do things in an effort to date/land a man that she may not wholly agree with. However, looking the best that she can is effective. Just as a man paying/courting is effective IF HE WANTS A RELATIONSHIP. (If he wants a booty call, just proposition her and dispense with the dating rituals.) And I am generalizing. Some women are okay going Dutch.
Buck25 says
Emily, GWTF, et al,
Tell me ladies, is it all that difficult to have an attractive , but relatively low-maintenance hairstyle. I recall a lot of women I’ve know who seemed to be able to manage that pretty well. Second, most of us do get that on an early date, you may even be coming straight from work. Trust me, we get that. This is exactly why I like to keep a first meeting as casual as possible; no man is going to come across at his best with a stressed-out woman, or for the matter, get a fair picture of her either. Business casual is just fine. FWIW it takes me about 40 minutes on average to get ready, so we have to make a little effort too, as Shaukat noted.
Henriette says
Hey, @Chance – genuine question with no snark, here. What if it’s not an issue of “quality men pay” but rather, women often look for clues during dates to help gauge fellows’ interest? To me, going Dutch screams, “platonic friendship!” while treating me whispers, “I’d like to explore something a bit more romantic.”
Like KK, a guy who asks me out again after splitting the bill will receive a no, not because I think he’s “cheap” or “not a quality guy,” but because I figure he’s merely willing to spend time with me while waiting for something better to come along.
Chance says
@Emily: “Sorry, my bad. Whenever I ask you what a woman can bring to the table, you always write her looks.”
Yeah, I think I said that a total of zero times. I don’t think you’ve ever even asked me what women brings to the table. Please copy/paste where I’ve said that looks are the only thing that women bring to the table. I think the only thing that would even come close to this was that I said there isn’t anything a woman can do, as far as behaviors are concerned, to make a man sexually attracted to her if he wasn’t already sexually attracted. Even then, that’s not close to what you’re accusing me of saying.
@Henriette: fair enough. Again, my whole issue here is with how people choose to apply the terms “quality” men/women.
KK says
Chance,
I’ve read everything you’ve said on here. I understand your point of view. I’m just wondering why it bothers you so much when the term “quality man / woman” is used. Me thinks thou protest too much.
Stacy2 says
Ok. this is a subject I have to weigh in on.
Yes it is expensive as shit to look “hot”. What i spend on looking like me is the second largest expense category after rent, and mind you I live in one of the most expensive zip codes in the country. To give you guys some sense:
1. Hair color is $200 for highlights and $100 for touch-ups. These are deeply discounted prices (by about 40%) because I have been with my colorist for nearly 10 years. You need at least 4 of each per year, so it comes down to $100/month
2. Gym with personal trainer 2x weekly is $570/month – again this is heavily subsidized by my employer, would be more than a double that without them picking up the tab
3. One massage or one facial per month comes down to about $100
4. Waxing (yes… ) $65 per session, need about 1x a month
5. Mani-pedi – seasonal, need more often in the summer but lets say I get it in a salon 1x a month and do it myself 1x a month so the total will be $50
6. Products cost me about $40/month on a rolling basis as I replenish whatever is running low. I use mid-range products such as clinique and bliss and RX skin products that are covered by insurance because lets face it, with high end stuff you’re mostly paying for the fancy jar
7. And this is before we get into fillers, botox, and any other serious stuff. A single session of fillers (under eye, nose folds, lips) with a reputable spa that will not leave you look “done” will be about $1000. Figure those 2x yearly.
So what have we here? ~$1,100 per month budget (!!!). In contrast, what does my b/f do? He buys an all in one shampoo body wash for $3, a set of razors for $30 and pays $200 for his gym (w/o trainer add on) and he’s good to go. So here you go fellas.
So, yes, when I put that much effort into the presentation, I expect a guy to pick up the freaking $50 wine bar tab. And it is absolutely more expensive to be a woman than it is to be a man. You don’t even have to believe my anecdotes on this. It’s been documented by researches who compared side by side nearly identical products marketed to women and men. It’s like, a pink girls bike costs more than a blue one, i am not joking. There’s a marketing term “pink razor tax” – meaning women’s razors are more expensive (they’re also shitty which is why i don’t buy them), it’s really infuriating that companies do that.
Jeremy says
@Henriette, I liked your comment and agree with you. Many women view the guy paying as a heuristic for whether he is serious about a relationship, or even as a heuristic of how he would be in a future LTR/marriage. There’s nothing wrong with heuristics….as long as we realize that they are prone to systematic bias and can lead us astray.
A man paying does not necessarily mean he is into you, or would support you in a marriage. A man being confident does not necessarily mean that he can protect you/deal with anything life may throw at him effectively, or dazzle you in the sack. A man taking the lead and planning does not necessarily mean that he is worthy of taking the lead. And conversely, a man who doesn’t pay for the first date may totally support you in a marriage. A non-confident man may be thoughtful and ultimately obtain the best results. A man who does not take the lead may be most worthy.
I know that most women “know” this, but it seems that they often forget. A man who does not necessarily fulfill a woman’s heuristics of “quality” may yet prove himself to be of highest quality. YMMV.
Evan Marc Katz says
Yes.
Katie says
Stacy2
1. Skip the highlights. Dye from a box. Makes almost NO difference.
2. Have the trainer design a plan for you. Follow that for the next 3-6 months and then revisit the trainer. Seriously, why are you paying a trainer twice a week….???? You’re trainer’s ripping you off hardcore.
3. Erm and facial a month is rather unusual ya know…
4. One word. Nair. It’s fuckin great.
5. Okay granted. There’s 50$. Spend that.
6. Again, go to town here 🙂
7. Methinks you may be overdoing these a bit by your summary, but I don’t know you so can’t say for sure.
TLDR: Woman you’re choosing to go above and beyond in the beauty depart.
Stacy2 says
@Katie
Hey Katie:
I don’t really need advice on how to trip this budget. It has not always been this big ya know? I can shrink it if need be. I am not professing that all of those things are non-discretionary. They are. The point is that they DO make a difference (yes salon highights make a huge difference, it looks natural as opposed to color from the box, because naturally blond hair are never uniform color, unlike box-dyed result, if you can’t see it you’re color blind sorry. personal trainer gave me a six pack as opposed to “some belly fat” etc.)
The point is, I do all that because I want to be the absolute best version of myself that I can reasonably afford. Because this has proved to be the most efficient strategy of attracting men i want to attract. It just came to my attention that quality men somehow end up with hot women. When that changes and they begin to judge us on our deep inner life and character, i will ditch my colorist and my trainer. Something tells me though that their jobs are very, very safe for now.
Katie says
The point is, I do all that because I want to be the absolute best version of myself that I can reasonably afford.
Fair enough. But then you can’t go around holding dudes accountable for your choice to splurge on beauty treatments. Like you suggested here…
So, yes, when I put that much effort into the presentation, I expect a guy to pick up the freaking $50 wine bar tab.
(Misposted this in the wrong subthread, so copy/pasted here)
Buck25 says
@ Stacy2
“…fillers, botox and other serious stuff”
You’re kidding, right? Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you thirty-something? And doing that, already? Whatever are you going to do when you hit 40? Or 50? And since when did guys start demanding “six-pack abs, instead of a little belly fat” even at your age? All I can say is, things must sure be different in The Big Apple, cause I don’t see much of that down here except with the 20-somethng crowd.
Oh, and by the by, I’ve been married three times, and had several other intimate relationships with women, and I am quite well aware of “how the sausage is made”. Matter of fact, I usually like to see a woman without makeup, or hear hair done, fairly early on, because on the chance that the relationship goes intimate, I want to know what I’m going to be waking up to in the morning (and as we all know, that can be a very different picture). 🙂
Stacy2 says
Hey Buck25: yes things are pretty competitive around here.
You’re kidding, right? Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you thirty-something? And doing that, already?
Those are not age-related treatments (With the exception for Botox, which I don’t do as I don’t yet need it. But some women begin it in their late 20-ies as a preventative measure. It prevents wrinkle development – just as an FYI).
And since when did guys start demanding “six-pack abs, instead of a little belly fat” even at your age?
Eh… since as long as I can remember? Why, did I miss something and fat is back in vogue?
Katie:
But then you can’t go around holding dudes accountable for your choice to splurge on beauty treatments.
This is a really twisted way of looking at things. Holding them accountable? I don’t owe them anything (and vice versa) so I am not holding them accountable for anything.
Look at it this way. Dating is like marketing. So let me use this analogy. Let’s say you create a product and let’s say it’s a Ferrari. You put a lot of work into it and invested a lot of money into making it sleek and shiny and fast and all of those things. As a result, it is so nice that a lot of people would love to have one. Consequently, you expect prospective customers to pay $150K for it. Now, a guy shows up at your store and complaints that it is not fair – he only wants to spend $20K. Are you then holding him accountable for your choice to make an expensive Ferrari? No, you don’t. That’s not what you’re doing. You simply point him down the road towards a Toyota dealership and you wait for the next guy to show up, who will fully appreciate your product and will pay the asking price and will drive off happy!
Dating is the same exact thing. Except the product you’re presenting is yourself. Cheers!
GoWiththeFlow says
Katie,
You gynecologist would not approve of using Nair on the hoo hah area. The burns can be epic, not to mention painful.
I once ruined my hair with an at home highlighting kit. Over the period of 3 months every strand of hair that got highlighted broke off at the area of new growth.
And monthly facials are not unusual. I don’t get them nearly that often, but I know women who do. Including my friend’s seventeen year old daughter who gets them done at her dermatologist’s office to treat her cystic acne.
Lastly, Stacy2 is in NYC. I split time between a rural area of my state and the Phoenix/Scottsdale area. The 1-10 SMV scale is completely different in the two areas. A woman who is a 7 in the sticks would have to seriously up her game to maintain that or even a 5-6 status in the city. And I’m sure a Scottsdale girl relocating to LA or NYC would likewise have to kick it up a few notches.
So don’t be so judgmental about the what or why of other women’s beauty routines.
Katie says
I already explained my reasoning for this assertion.
Katie:
But then you can’t go around holding dudes accountable for your choice to splurge on beauty treatments.
I explained it with a quote of yours. Here, let me remind you…
“(Katie) But then you can’t go around holding dudes accountable for your choice to splurge on beauty treatments. Like you suggested here…
(Stacy2) So, yes, when I put that much effort into the presentation, I expect a guy to pick up the freaking $50 wine bar tab. “
You cherry-picked parts of my quotes and repurposed them to to support your own assumptions.
That’s a logical fallacy.
Katie says
You gynecologist would not approve of using Nair on the hoo hah area.
Pubic and armpit hair is the best regions to Nair as long as you read the instructions and do it right. Common sense goes a long way here, ladies.
I once ruined my hair with an at home highlighting kit.
I agree that highlighting at home is a bad idea. If you’re determined to be blonde, and you’re not a genetic blonde then yeah. Do it professionally. But it’s hella cheaper to work with a color closer to your natural color. In my experience, as long as your hair looks healthy, I don’t think guys think certain colors are really hotter than others.
And monthly facials are not unusual. I don’t get them nearly that often, but I know women who do. Including my friend’s seventeen year old daughter who gets them done at her dermatologist’s office to treat her cystic acne.
Your example is an extreme case and is nonsensical in the context of this conversation.
Lastly, Stacy2 is in NYC. I split time between a rural area of my state and the Phoenix/Scottsdale area. The 1-10 SMV scale is completely different in the two areas. A woman who is a 7 in the sticks would have to seriously up her game to maintain that or even a 5-6 status in the city. And I’m sure a Scottsdale girl relocating to LA or NYC would likewise have to kick it up a few notches.
I agree with the concept, but not the extremity. Stacey says she is spending over 1K a month on beautifying stuff.
Just my humble opinion of course.
GoWiththeFlow says
Katie,
“Pubic and armpit hair is the best regions to Nair as long as you read the instructions and do it right. Common sense goes a long way here, ladies”
Who are you going to believe, the gynecologists who treat the burns and rashes or a company trying to make a profit by advertising a product as being “the best for”?
“If you’re determined to be blonde. . .”
I am a natural blonde (you shouldn’t make assumptions). Most people who get highlights are already blonde, they’re improving upon mother nature.
“Your example {a teen getting facial for acne} is an extreme case and is nonsensical in the context of this conversation.”
No it’s not. That girl cried herself to sleep because of how her acne affected her appearance. It had a severe impact on her confidence in social settings, especially with boys. Routine facials with medical grade products can also reduce facial discoloration ad fine wrinkles–i.e. improve appearance.
As far as cost goes, to get skincare products that are scientifically proven to even out pigmentation and reduce wrinkles, those cost a lot of money and often times have to be dispensed by a physician. The strength of the chemicals and the pH level are regulated by the FDA. Most drugstore and over the counter products that say they contain active ingredients (AHAs and BHAs) are in a cream, serum, or liquid that isn’t acidic enough (low enough pH) for the chemicals to be in their active form.
So for women past a certain age, dropping big sums to maintain a healthy youthful appearance isn’t an unusual thing.
Katie says
@GWTF
Who are you going to believe, the gynecologists who treat the burns and rashes or a company trying to make a profit by advertising a product as being “the best for”?
I’m gonna believe me. Being the intelligent, instruction-reading girl that I am that’s been merrily using Nair for 5 years or so.
“(Katie) If you’re determined to be blonde. . .”
(GWTF) I am a natural blonde (you shouldn’t make assumptions). Most people who get highlights are already blonde, they’re improving upon mother nature.
You excised out the parts of my statement that didn’t support your own assumptions. Allow me to correct you, sweets.
“(Katie) If you’re determined to be blonde, and you’re not a genetic blonde then yeah. Do it professionally. “
Moving on.
“( Katie)Your example {a teen getting facial for acne} is an extreme case and is nonsensical in the context of this conversation.”
(GWTF) No it’s not. That girl cried herself to sleep …
(sad story! but irrelevant in the context!)
…because of how her acne affected her appearance. It had a severe impact on her confidence in social settings, especially with boys.
Very sad story, but a logical fallacy when used in this context. The discussion was about 30ish year olds getting facials every month. To each their own, but many would consider that excessive, hence the discussion. Your story adds literally nothing and tries to distract from that fact by being a sad and emotional story.
That’s a logical fallacy. Red herring I think it’s called.
“As far as cost goes, to get skincare products that are scientifically proven to even out pigmentation and …snip…dropping big sums to maintain a healthy youthful appearance isn’t an unusual thing.”
Not arguing that. Never did.
GoWiththeFlow says
Katie,
“Allow me to correct you, sweets.”
First, please don’t call me “sweets.” You are not my friend, loved one, or even a friendly stranger who is using it in a positive context as a term of endearment. You are using it as a put down and a way to try and demonstrate that I need you to correct me. I don’t.
“Who are you going to believe, the gynecologists who treat the burns and rashes or a company trying to make a profit by advertising a product as being “the best for”?
“I’m gonna believe me. Being the intelligent, instruction-reading girl that I am that’s been merrily using Nair for 5 years or so.”
Fine if you want to make your own your own decisions based on your own risk/benefit ratio. Just don’t criticize women, by implying they are being vain or flippant with money, when they choose other forms of hair removal based on things like what gynecologists and dermatologists recommend.
“Very sad story, but a logical fallacy when used in this context. The discussion was about 30ish year olds getting facials every month. To each their own, but many would consider that excessive, hence the discussion. Your story adds literally nothing and tries to distract from that fact by being a sad and emotional story.”
There are way more cases of adult acne than teen acne. Probably because there are more adults than teens. I am 49 and will still break out if I neglect my skin care routine. So change the age from 17 to 37 if that helps you to conceptualize that the huge majority of women go to get facials to address specific skin concerns. It’s pricey–which is exactly why women have to have a reason whether it’s acne, milia, rosacea, excessive dryness and flakiness, etc. to start getting them routinely. Most women don’t just buy a package of facials for the heck of it.
Do whatever you want with your hair, skin, makeup and clothes. That is your right ass the owner of your body, and I don’t think you would appreciate it if other women told you you were doing too little, or too much, not spending enough time and money on yourself, or spending too much. Treat other women as you would want to them to treat you and lay off from judging how they care for themselves.
Shaukat says
@GWTF,
If the issue is acne, there are prescription medications and creams that you can purchase, covered by insurance for many, that last a lot longer than a month.
I personally am not judging or dismissing the effort many women put into looking good, the only two points I was making were 1). By and large, women do not put in this effort as some kind of a quid pro quo for men paying for dates; 2). many of the examples offered, with the exception of make-up and the discretionary procedures pursued by certain individual women, are practices predicated on basic grooming and physical upkeep that men have to adopt as well to generate attraction.
ScottH says
You guys only get a facial once a month? I plan on giving my gf a facial a few times a week.
ScottH says
Stacy: “In contrast, what does my b/f do? He buys an all in one shampoo body wash for $3, a set of razors for $30 and pays $200 for his gym (w/o trainer add on) and he’s good to go. So here you go fellas.”
Your bf can get all in one body wash for a buck at the dollar store and go to planet fitness for $19/month and razors at Aldi for about $5. Geez, you NYC people sure waste a lot of money. And you can get a bottle of wine at Trader Joes for less than $5. Then you can have some money left over for charity. Think about it.
Nissa says
For skin / acne treatments, check out the Skin Obsession website. They have spa quality stuff you can use at home. I’m not affiliated with them, I’m just eternally grateful to them for selling the stuff I couldn’t find anywhere, so I could skip the salon and prettify at home.
Katie says
GWTF,
You are trying very, very hard to interpret me as argumentative when in fact I’m not. Let’s start with this advice from you:
“(GWTF) Treat other women as you would want to them to treat you and lay off from judging how they care for themselves.”
People judge each other. Everyone does. I judge the stranger in the car at the turn signal to predict whether they’re likely to pull out in front of me. I judge the stranger in the check out line, and conclude that they’re not likely to smash a jar of olives over my head, drag my body away, and wear my skin as pj’s. I judge that, given the information that Stacy2 volunteered, it did not seem logical. I reserve the right to change my mind, but that doesn’t change the fact. Not only does my expressing that thought not hurt anyone, but it can lead to healthy mature discussion. We learn about each other by talking with each other and expressing our differences.
So lay off with the middle school You-Can’t-Judge-Me rant.
Moving on.
“(GWTF) First, please don’t call me “sweets.” You are not my friend, loved one, or even a friendly stranger who is using it in a positive context as a term of endearment. You are using it as a put down and a way to try and demonstrate that I need you to correct me. I don’t.
Acknowledged. I apologize.
“Fine if you want to make your own your own decisions based on your own risk/benefit ratio. Just don’t criticize women, by implying they are being vain or flippant with money, when they choose other forms of hair removal based on things like what gynecologists and dermatologists recommend.”
I did not criticize. Stacy2 volunteered a problem (expensive waxes) and I suggested a solution (Nair). Stacy is a grown ass woman as is not threatened by my suggesting an alternative. Even though she disagrees. This is how grown ass people communicate.
And now for the last thing.
“(Katie) Very sad story, but a logical fallacy when used in this context-snip-“
(GWTF) There are way more cases of adult acne than teen acne. Probably because there are more adults than teens…snip… Most women don’t just buy a package of facials for the heck of it.”
No one buys something just for the heck of having it. They buy it because they want it and think it will improve their life in some way.
Your arguments have a misalignment of cause and effect. Teen acne does no credit to a discussion about 30ish year old women getting facials to get better dates. Your diatribe about older-women-get-acne-too does not change that.
Shaukat says
Hi Emily and GWTF,
Again, everyone puts in effort with their appearance. In fact, out of all the things you named, the only two that men don’t have to worry about are make up and a highlight/blow out-whatever a blowout is. I personally spend about 40 minutes preparing for a date, if you count showering, styling hair, and shaving. I also make sure to wear something stylish and to get a haircut if I need one.
Besides, some of the stuff you mentioned, such as make up and shaving, are things women do anyways in their daily/weekly lives, and not just in preparation for a date. And I can assure you that most men won’t notice if you skip the hair highlights and the blowout.
Chance says
Yep, and another thing (since we’re on the subject), females have always told me that the reason they spend a lot of time/money/effort on their appearance is that they do it for themselves, and definitely not for men. So, what gives?
Emily, the original says
Shaukat,
Besides, some of the stuff you mentioned, such as make up and shaving, are things women do anyways in their daily/weekly lives, and not just in preparation for a date.
Not all women wear make up every day. And not all women shave everyday, especially in the winter. They will do both things if they are excited about a date. I just had a conversation about this with a guy friend. He asked why his girlfriend wore makeup when they first started dating but now, 2 years later, rarely does. He liked that she used to put in more effort to look good for him.
And I can assure you that most men won’t notice if you skip the hair highlights and the blowout.
The most compliments I receive from your side happen when I go to work the day after getting my hair professionally done. My hair is curly and I can straighten it myself, but it is time consuming. Another woman in my office changed her hair color and style and one of our mutual male co-workers noticed both changes. Trust me. Men notice.
Buck25 says
Shaukat, I’ll cosign on that. I still prefer to pay (I’m old school, after all); but on the appearance thing, methinks some of the ladies protest too much.
GoWiththeFlow says
Shaukat, Chance, Buck,
What I suggest is to google interviews with transwomen. They have lived as men and then transition to being home and can directly compare how the two different sexes exist in society. In almost every interview they will talk about how much more pressure women are under to be physically attractive 24/7, including how mortise consuming and expensive it is.
For comparison, in one of Evan’s blog posts he has a link to an interview that a transman did (maybe with Dan Savage???) where he talks about the differences between how women and men think about and pursue sex. After he started transitioning and getting testosterone shots, he described how small things like seeing a pair of attractive women’s calves would set off an imagery slide show in his head and get him thinking of sex. This doesn’t happen to women, we see a cute guy and say wow he’s hot, and then we move on mentally. It was a very enlightening glimpse into what the experience of being a man is.
GoWiththeFlow says
EDIT: “They have lived as men and then transition to being home. . .”
Should read then transition to being WOMEN. . .
My autocorrect is out of control 🙁
GoWiththeFlow says
Chance,
“. . . females have always told me that the reason they spend a lot of time/money/effort on their appearance is that they do it for themselves, and definitely not for men. So, what gives?”
They do it for themselves so they will be noticed and appreciated by men. Because being noticed and appreciated by men feels good.
If you leave the house looking good, men smile and say hi. You get offers of help when you’re in a dress and heels but have to put air in the tire. Store clerks will walk you to your car and put the 50 pound bag of dog food in your trunk for you. If I go out without my contact lenses in, no makeup, hair in a pony tail, with sweats and a pair of tennis shoes on, I don’t even get eye contact.
Stacy2 says
If I go out without my contact lenses in, no makeup, hair in a pony tail, with sweats and a pair of tennis shoes on, I don’t even get eye contact.
I once contracted some eye infection and had to wear glasses for a few days instead of my contacts. I didn’t even get cat calls while walking past a construction site!! I used to walk past it every day on my way to work and it was as if I suddenly became invisible. Ridiculous. Had to ditch those glasses pronto. Lol
Stacy2 says
And I can assure you that most men won’t notice if you skip the hair highlights and the blowout.
Oh yes sure they will. They just won’t be able to tell why this woman suddenly looks less attractive. Men may not know how exactly the sausage is made, but they sure can tell if it tastes wrong.
Shaukat says
Buck and Chance, I agree with you gents. I appreciate that women want to look pretty on a date, and I’ll also acknowledge that historically women have faced far more pressure on a societal level in terms of their appearance, but the analogy being brought up here is false on another level as well.
As most of the female commenters have pointed out, a man who decides to go Dutch on the first date will, in most cases, forfeit the opportunity for a second date. In comparison, I’m having a tough time envisioning any man ever saying or thinking, even on a subconscious level, “I was planning on asking her out again, but since she didn’t put in the effort with her hair and didn’t apply enough eye liner, I’ve decided against it.”
Buck25 says
In spite of the denials, I still think a lot of women dress more to impress other women (or at least keep up with them than to impress men. Not that you don’t dress for and enjoy male attention, it’s just that I’ve observed married women being just as catty about another woman’s outfit, hairstyle or makeup as a gaggle of single women are. You ladies sure do compare yourselves with each other a lot, especially on looks (real or imagined). You compete with each other on looks like we compete with our toys (cars, boats, etc.). Female equivalent of a pecker measuring contest, if you ask me.
GoWiththeFlow says
Buck,
Yes there’s a competition element to it. And that ingrained behavior doesn’t change after you get married!
Katie says
@Buck
Female equivalent of a pecker measuring contest, if you ask me.
Methinks your female friends must be middle school aged.
Women do NOT act like that with each other.
GoWiththeFlow says
Shaukat,
“I’m having a tough time envisioning any man ever saying or thinking, even on a subconscious level, ‘I was planning on asking her out again, but since she didn’t put in the effort with her hair and didn’t apply enough eye liner, I’ve decided against it.'”
Women doing all that they can to make themselves as pretty as possible is all about getting above the male attraction threshold women have to meet or exceed to get a man’s attention and interest. There have also been several comments on many posts that some men have higher looks standards for LTRs than NSA sex or STRs. At any rate, it never hurts a woman to be as pretty as she can be. But it will definitely hinder her if she isn’t clearing a certain attractiveness level, not just in the dating and mating arena, but in other social interactions as well.
When I look at the posts in this sub thread, I don’t view it as the dollar cost of beauty creation/maintenence canceling out the dollar cost of paying for courting costs. Just like I am trying to understand what it means for men to be expected to pay for dates, I would like men to understand that this is a real thing in the lives of women without poo-poohing it.
Buck25 says
@ Katie,
I don’t know about where you are, but here, they most certainly do, and we are talking women 55 and up, at least according to the calendar. I would not care to bet as to whether some of these women are “middle-school-aged” emotionally, however. 🙂
Emily, the original says
Buck25,
Not that you don’t dress for and enjoy male attention, it’s just that I’ve observed married women being just as catty about another woman’s outfit, hairstyle or makeup as a gaggle of single women are.
A lot of married people still seek out the attention/validation from the opposite sex from people other than their partners. The female competition/cattiness over makeup and hair is still rooted in competition over men. I’ve seen married women get very jealous when another woman gets attention from men the married woman doesn’t even like.
Emily, the original says
Also, I attended a liberal arts college whose student body was mostly women and gay men. Of the few straight men, many were extremely socially awkward. As freshman, many of the women started off looking traditionally feminine and, somewhere during their four years, cut their hair, stopped wearing makeup and stopped shaving because there weren’t guys there to impress.
Emily, the original says
Shaukat,
In comparison, I’m having a tough time envisioning any man ever saying or thinking, even on a subconscious level, “I was planning on asking her out again, but since she didn’t put in the effort with her hair and didn’t apply enough eye liner, I’ve decided against it.”
Google Jennifer Garner. Compare how she looks day-to-day, without makeup, as she takes care of her kids, and how she looks done up, with makeup and styled hair, going to an awards show. She looks fine both ways, but which version of her, if she were on a date, would signal to a man she was excited about him and the date’s romantic possibilities? (And this has nothing to do with whether or not she’s your type. I’m simply using her as an example.)
Emily, the original says
GoWiththeFlow,
Just like I am trying to understand what it means for men to be expected to pay for dates, I would like men to understand that this is a real thing in the lives of women without poo-poohing it.
Agreed. I am tired of the subtext that men have it so much harder in dating. Neither side has it easy. Just like neither side has the power.
Shaukat says
Emily, I find it interesting that you cut out the second part of my statement where I made it clear that I don’t believe that a man who works on self-improvement or on maximizing his looks should be compensated by women for that decision either.
Regardless, I’m not complaining that dating isn’t fair or claiming that men have it worse in life. In fact, if you look at a previous post of mine on this thread I stated that the societal pressure on women regarding their looks is far more potent than it is for men.
Emily, the original says
Shaukut,
Emily, I find it interesting that you cut out the second part of my statement where I made it clear that I don’t believe that a man who works on self-improvement or on maximizing his looks should be compensated by women for that decision either.
I didn’t cut it out. I chose to ignore it, because that seemed to be opening up the can of worms that women are compensated for their looks … if, what, men pay for dates?I don’t feel like going around in circles with that pointless argument.
Chance says
That’s the transaction: parents get a sense of pride and purpose for raising children in exchange for their time, energy, love, money, etc. to ensure that their children are properly raised. Again, everything is based on reciprocity.
Now, if you could only stop attacking the person….
Chance says
Argh, the last post above was in response to KK in thread 37.3.1.
Stacy2 says
Shaukat:
I’m having a tough time envisioning any man ever saying or thinking, even on a subconscious level, “I was planning on asking her out again, but since she didn’t put in the effort with her hair and didn’t apply enough eye liner, I’ve decided against it.”
You have GOT to be joking with this, right? Or do you really think that a man’s attraction and desire is not at all influenced by how the woman looks? You don’t have to answer. I am just calling BS on this because I know from my own experience that this isn’t true, you’re just arguing this ridiculous point because… i don’t know why, to put women down? To complain how life is not fair? Whatever that is, in case you are wondering, yes absolutely my chances of being asked out drop precipitously if I don’t show up dolled up, with eye liner and and hair done and all.
Shaukat says
The vast majority of items on Stacy2 ludicrous list-Botox, fillers, thousand dollar face lifts, private trainers, and blonde hair dye-don’t stem from the supposed preferences of men but rather, in my opinion, from either vanity, low self esteem, or, more likely a combination of the two. Yes, a man has to be attracted to you before asking you out on a second date. However, there are plenty of confident women who can generate attraction and look good without pissing away thousands of dollars on those ridiculous procedures which, quite frankly, resemble the items you would expect to see on a script written for a cast member of Desperate Housewives.
It should also be noted that men have to pass the physical attraction test of the women they date as well, which entails putting effort into their appearance by working out, rooming, etc. Despite what PUA scammers and certain women might say, no 8/10 ever dated a 4 due to ‘personality.’
@Katie
You sounds like a self-aware, confident, and empathetic woman.
D_M says
Stacy2,
It might be a cultural nuance thing. Yes, a woman’s looks matter, but there are many cultures around the world where “enhancements” are not the norm. Some men prefer a woman’s natural beauty, along with her imperfections. In some cases, less is more, because it can be perceived as easy going and confident in ones own skin.
Stacy2 says
Yes, a man has to be attracted to you before asking you out on a second date. However, there are plenty of confident women who can generate attraction and look good without pissing away thousands of dollars on those ridiculous procedures
Yes, there are women like that. Those are women who are already naturally blonde (or have another rich hair color – personally i woke up with fully gray hair 10 years ago after i buried 4 family members withing 3 months time span), who are naturally very skinny and stay that way without working out, who have genetically perfect skin and big full lips, and are otherwise blessed with all the other markers of attraction which the rest of us have to make up for. And guess what? These unique creatures are walking down fashion show runways and in between they’re dating tech industry billionaires whose idea of a first date is a private plane ride to the bahamas. Good luck winning these women with your irresistible personality over a coffee date. What a hoot!
GoWiththeFlow says
Shaukat,
“. . . there are plenty of confident women who can generate attraction and look good without pissing away thousands of dollars. . .”
Somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 of my practice is providing anesthesia for cosmetic/plastic surgery cases and I can tell you, you have NO idea who is getting what done. For instance during school breaks, we get slammed with teachers, school principals and counselors getting work done. We also get lots of nurses and other healthcare workers. It’s not just for the rich and celebrities anymore.
So the confident woman generating attraction in you could be getting monthly facials and waxes, be using medical grade skincare products, and have had a procedure done. You don’t know she’s having it done, you are just appreciating the results. Virtually all of the supermodels and celebrities that men swoon over use botox, fillers, expensive beauty products and have had work done, but I don’t see men slamming them as being vain or having low self-esteem. Because they don’t care, they’re just enjoying the view.
BTW, I’m not saying the amount of time and money women spend creating and maintaining beauty cancels out what a man spends on a date. Women are doing what is effective: Looking good so they will attract men.
Stacy2 says
Katie,
Fair enough, perhaps I should rephrase the original thought as this for the sake of clarity: when i put that much effort into the presentation, I expect to attract a man who will have no problem picking up the freaking $50 tab. Is this better?
I hate the term SMV, but let’s face the reality of the situation. The idea of beauty has been codified in our society. In my original state upon my arrival to NYC i was may be a 6. Diets, sports, weight loss, treatments, makeovers, some procedures which shall remain a secret, makeup lessons – now I am legitimately an 8-9. Literally, if you put together my passport photos from 10 years ago and now you’d not think that its the same person. I have more fun dating at 34 than i did at 24. Vain? Sure. Whatever. I will stop being vain when men will stop being shallow. In the mean time, I am enjoying some return on investment.
Katie says
I was about to write a rather snarky response where I count up your “investment”. 1K a month, 12K a year, 10 years from 24 to 34 = 120K.
But then I’m like well as long as I’m not in debt for it, 120K is totally worth it for a great relationship.
TLDR: You keep doing you lovely lady 🙂
Shaukat says
Emily, I acknowledge that women look nice in make-up and with their hair styled. However, let me reiterate that many women derive intrinsic joy from getting done up, and the forty minutes or so it takes me to get ready for a date is probably equal to the time it takes you to throw on some make up. Plus, I’m willing to bet you wear make-up throughout the week. If a woman finds the process that burdensome I would simply recommend that they stop wearing make up. It’s really not that big of a deal, and many men enjoy the natural look.
Either way, I don’t see how anyone can try and take credit for this type of effort. It’s the equivalent of a guy who spends every evening in the gym getting ripped and following a very strict diet claiming that women ought to pick up the tab for him on dates.
Emily, the original says
Shaukat,
Either way, I don’t see how anyone can try and take credit for this type of effort.
That’s fine. It’s up to you if you want to try to understand what they other side goes through or if you want to spend hours arguing about what’s fair or not fair or who deserves what or who should pay or not pay …. yada, yada, yada. If your dating techniques are effective, fabulous.
Stacy2 says
If someone asks me out and allows me to split the tab, I’m going to assume he isn’t interested. If he asks me for a second date, I’ll decline.
Agree completely. He who doesn’t pay is not interested. If he is asking me out again, he’s after easy sex (hard pass). If that happened I would be self-reflecting on what I did to come off as someone who’d go for it. But i think is has happened to me about zero times.
Katie says
He who doesn’t pay is not interested.
Not true. Guys are super grateful when a chick genuinely wants to split the check. It’s important that the girl makes it clear that she empathizes with the male dating experience for it to work though, and makes it clear tha she’s having a blast and just wants to spend time with him and does’n want him to buy her stuff.
In my experience, when a dude understands what I’m saying, and gets over the knee jerk gotta-pay-just-cause reaction agrees it leads to a much more relaxed and fun date. It removes a lot of silly pressure of both parties.
“Chivalry” in the traditional sense needs to just die. And, no I’m not a dude pretending to be a chick. If everyone goes Dutch then literally the only thing that brought you there is the opportunity to spend time with the other person. Not free drinks. Not free food. Not an ego complex. Just good company.
Katie says
Sorry for the horrendous typos. Writing on phone.
Stacy2 says
If everyone goes Dutch then literally the only thing that brought you there is the opportunity to spend time with the other person. Not free drinks. Not free food. Not an ego complex. Just good company.
And that is exactly what happens when I get together with my platonic friends. When I get together for a date with a guy i don’t do that for the value of “company”. I don’t know if i even want his company yet. What I need to see is his level of interest. And, that level of interest should be higher than “sure I’ll fuck her especially since it doesn’t cost me anything” – because that literally describes any guy on the street. There’s just simply no way to assess his level of interest while going Dutch
PS I always pay my share if I myself am not interested. I am not in it for free drinks.
Katie says
When I get together for a date with a guy i don’t do that for the value of “company”.
It’s not an interview, lovely.
What I need to see is his level of interest. And, that level of interest should be higher than “sure I’ll fuck her especially since it doesn’t cost me anything” —
Suggesting that his level of interest is quantified by how much he buys you??? This mentality is EXACTLY why it makes more sense to go dutch.
Stacy2 says
Suggesting that his level of interest is quantified by how much he buys you??? This mentality is EXACTLY why it makes more sense to go dutch.
Not by how much he buys me, but by how much effort he is willing to expand. Meeting me for a low-key drink event when we are going dutch = zero effort on this part. You can never pay any attention to what men say (talk is cheap), only to what they do. And how do you judge their interest, sweetie, if I may ask?
Katie says
Meeting me for a low-key drink event when we are going dutch = zero effort on this part.
No. You’re flat wrong about it being zero effort. Zero effort would be him staying home, watching porn and drinking beer in his jammies. He wants to spend time with you. He’s spending his time to come meet you and that’s effort. Just like it is for you as well.
You can never pay any attention to what men say (talk is cheap), only to what they do.
So what they do is what’s important as long as what they’re doing is buying you stuff. Got it. Because them just meeting with you in the first place takes “zero effort”.
And how do you judge their interest, sweetie, if I may ask?
Glad you asked, lovie.
By if they call me. By if they invite me to go wander the town with them after dinner. By if they let their guard down and just be a little goofy around me. By if they send me sweet texts later. By the stories they choose tell me. By their body language. And yes, by what they say. If they say they had a blast and want to see me again soon I believe them.
Stacy2 says
Katie:
By if they call me. By if they invite me to go wander the town with them after dinner. By if they let their guard down and just be a little goofy around me. By if they send me sweet texts later. By the stories they choose tell me. By their body language. And yes, by what they say. If they say they had a blast and want to see me again soon I believe them.
I suppose you’re a mind reader then, because none – and i mean none of those things indicates anything other that they’re attracted to you and want to sleep with you. Which you already know since they’ve asked you out in the first place, duh! The question is exactly how much do they care about you? When a man cares about you he will want to give you things. He will go into the “provider-protector-staking my territory” mode. Which is of course largely symbolic at this point in time because let’s face – unless he’s a trust-funder employed as a fire-fighter – he neither provides nor protects. He just wants to feel as if he does. It will be exemplified by him paying for your glass of wine. Symbolic. But if that urge is not there – you really have no idea if he’s really into you or is just passing his time until the real deal comes along.
Jeremy says
Stacy2, you realize that what you wrote about a man showing his interest by providing things for you is only true if his love language is gift giving, right? I’m not so into self-help stuff, but the “5 love languages” is a handy read.
If his language is quality time, he will show his interest by wanting to spend time with you.
If his language is words of affirmation, he will show his interest by what he says to you.
If his language is acts of service, he will show his interest by wanting to do things for you.
If his language is physical touch, he will show his interest by wanting to touch you.
And if his language is gift giving, then your comment is correct.
The best point of the book is not that different people have different love languages, but rather in understanding that the language we expect others to show is the one we speak. So if a woman thinks that men show interest by gift giving, most likely that’s how she, herself, receives love. It doesn’t speak so much about men in general, just about your taste in men.
ScottH says
Stacy2: “When a man cares about you he will want to give you things.”
So the more he gives you, the more he loves you? That is seriously flawed logic. What if he gives you a poem that he wrote just for you and it didn’t cost a cent but his heart is in it? Love is only for rich people and the richer they are and the more they give, the more they love? That is seriously sick thinking.
Katie has it far more correct than you do, IMO.
Kanga says
Stacy2, My last partner was a multi millionaire – I am right now typing on a $3000 laptop he bought me, wearing a watch the same value among many, many other things. None of those things meant anything to him. They are loose change.
For one valentines while I got a dozen long stemmed roses sent to me, I searched online for someone in the district he was born in who understood the local slang and got a personal message I’d written translated into his language. That took me weeks to achieve and a lot of thought. Nobody had ever done that before and he cried when he read his card. I wager nobody will ever think that much about him again. For his birthday I got a personal emblem designed and etched onto glasses that had personal meaning to him, his country and his deceased father. I got jewellery that could be picked in half and hour.
Money is meaningless – he thought about nothing he bought me. While I put untold thought and care into every gift because I couldn’t afford what he could. He was always blown away with what I did for him and always wanted to ‘pay’ me back and give me money for what I had outlayed. In the end, he was a psychopath and all his gifts will ever make up for the pain he ended up bringing me. Money and gifts are meaningless to people who can afford them. A beggar who gives you his last dollar is giving more than a millionaire who gives you a top of the line computer. That is the truth and you will have a very unhappy life if you equate happiness and love with material possessions. Look forward to a fake, shallow, meaningless marriage. You couldn’t pay me to do that.
Stacy2 says
ScottH:
So the more he gives you, the more he loves you? That is seriously flawed logic.
You said that, I didn’t. I said that he needs to have the urge to give you. The material amount of what he gives is not that relevant. It’s about the desire to give something to you, to take care of you anyway he can.
ScottH says
Stacy2: “The material amount of what he gives is not that relevant. It’s about the desire to give something to you, to take care of you anyway he can.”
I stand corrected. I totally misinterpreted everything I’ve ever read from you.
KK says
“If he is asking me out again, he’s after easy sex (hard pass). If that happened I would be self-reflecting on what I did to come off as someone who’d go for it”.
Why? Do you also self reflect when someone you think is below your league shows interest or asks you out? I don’t. I agree with what Evan has said. It’s not about who you attract. It’s about who you accept.
“But i think is has happened to me about zero times”.
Most likely because of the subliminal messages you’re sending the poor schmuck. Unlike the rest of that lack your telepathic abilities.
Katie says
I suppose you’re a mind reader then, because none — and i mean none of those things indicates anything other that they’re attracted to you and want to sleep with you.
In addition to wanting sex many of my examples also show that he enjoys my company. And honestly, if I had fun with him and I like him, and if we’re still talking first or second dates here, then all that is enough to make me want to go on another date with him.
I don’t see anything wrong with this thinking.
While it sounds that my perspective sounds naïve to you, to me your perspective seems very cold, restrictive, judgy and generally unhappy.
Shaukat says
When a man cares about you he will want to give you things.
Honestly Stacy, as with certain public figures like Ann Coulter, I can’t figure out if you’re genuine with some of your statements or if you’re deliberately trying to caricature a certain type of woman. Either way, your posts are at least always entertaining. Have a nice day.
KK says
Stacy2,
Thanks for the giggles. I won’t say what I’ve been thinking while reading your comments but I’m wondering if you realize what you’re describing does in deed sound like an exchange. I went off on Chance for calling all women prostitutes but reading what you’ve said certainly raises an eyebrow. “A RETURN on your investment”? Hmmm…
Thinking someone OWES you something because YOU CHOOSE to spend whatever amount you do on your upkeep is the goofiest damn thing I’ve ever read. By your logic, wouldn’t a man be much better off dating a naturally beautiful 10 than someone who needs to spend over $1K a month to temporarily look like an 8??? After all, if he’s expected to reimburse you for your investment, seems like the natural 10 would be the better choice or even the naturally good looking 8 or 9.
Stacy2 says
@KK
Yes a man would be better off dating a woman who completely naturally, with no effort whatsoever, looks as if she just stepped out of Sports Illustrated first thing in the morning, and that look of her is not “temporary” and stays the same and requires no investment and zero maintenance. Absolutely. The problem? This woman doesn’t exist. A few genetic freaks (and I use this term as a positive here) that are truly that blessed are in the league of their own and most men won’t ever afford them (let alone convince them to go dutch lol).
Lastly, I don’t think men owe me anything (likewise, i don’t owe any schmuck to go dutch with him either). My return on investment comes in the form of greater male attention – from men with higher social status vs. before, so i can have my pick (oddly, this also contributes to my cynical views, i hope you can see why)
KK says
Stacy2,
“My return on investment comes in the form of greater male attention – from men with higher social status vs. before, so i can have my pick (oddly, this also contributes to my cynical views, i hope you can see why)”.
Yes, because your sole purpose is to get your hooks in a rich guy. Nothing wrong with dating wealthy men. Nothing at all. But maybe if you filtered first for things like character and compatibility, you’d be less cynical. Maybe if you believed in the possibility of love, you’d be less cynical. Maybe if you weren’t focused on shallow men (your own words) you’d be less cynical. By all means, keep doing what you’re doing if you don’t mind being cynical, but possibly a change in perspective and goals might actually make you happier.
Buck seemed to believe what you said about being loving, etc to a man, but I know you’ve recently said this is a ploy to get these (in your words) pathetic guys to fall for you. Whatever. Personally, I think you’re the one who’s going to end up getting played, if you haven’t already. If you’re really dating the caliber of men you claim to be, they can see right through your BS and play you harder than you ever imagined. Just something to keep in mind in your quest for er… not sure what I’d call it.
Chance says
“Lastly, I don’t think men owe me anything (likewise, i don’t owe any schmuck to go dutch with him either).”
Fascinating how you interpret going Dutch as “owing” something to a man.
Stacy2 says
@KK:
Buck seemed to believe what you said about being loving, etc to a man, but I know you’ve recently said this is a ploy to get these (in your words) pathetic guys to fall for you
The thing is i don’t think these men care. Genuine or act, to them it feels the same. I deliver what they want (or at least try to) and that’s that. May be it works, may be it doesn’t, but you tell me, what the f$&^k else should a woman be required to do to get a guy other than to look hot and make him feel good about himself? If there’s more to it than screw it, i am staying single. Too much work (it is too much as it is already).
But maybe if you filtered first for things like character and compatibility,
It doesn’t make a difference in which order you filter. You should obviously always filter for character and compatibility. I just think that irrespective of their character, they’re all shallow and to some degree jerks. The difference between a poor shallow guy and a rich shallow guy is that the latter flies you to the Caribbean while the former expects you to go dutch on a coffee date. The choice here is clear. To be clear, I would chose a guy who is less well to do over a wealthier guy if he was a better person. I just haven’t seen any correlation.
Emily, the original says
Stacy2
Yes a man would be better off dating a woman who completely naturally, with no effort whatsoever, looks as if she just stepped out of Sports Illustrated first thing in the morning, and that look of her is not “temporary” and stays the same and requires no investment and zero maintenance. Absolutely. The problem? This woman doesn’t exist.
There’s a great quote in the movie August: Osage County:
“All women need makeup. Don’t let anybody tell you different. The only woman who was pretty enough to go without makeup was Elizabeth Taylor and she wore a ton.”
KK says
Emily mentioned the movie quote,
“All women need makeup. Don’t let anybody tell you different. The only woman who was pretty enough to go without makeup was Elizabeth Taylor and she wore a ton”.
And if we were to do side by side comparisons of a 25 year old, bare faced Elizabeth Taylor and a 25 year old, bare faced Sandra Bernhardt, I’m sure we’d be able to see which one is naturally beautiful.
My only point was complaining about the cost of beauty products / treatments as a way to justify men spending money on women. There are many very attractive women who don’t spend and don’t need to spend anywhere close to $1,000 a month on their upkeep.
Stacy2 says
My only point was complaining about the cost of beauty products / treatments as a way to justify men spending money on women.
I was neither “complaining” about it nor “justifying” it, so it appears you’ve been tilting at windmills all along.
In all honesty, the idea that there should be “fairness” in dating should just die. Men and women don’t owe each other anything. Men don’t owe us to pay for our drinks, and we don’t owe them dates, sex or the warmth of our company. If this is the premise we start from, it is clear that terms like “justifying men spending money”, “holding men accountable”, “coercing men” etc. are simply crazy talk. There’s no “fairness” in dating (heck, there’s no one in life either), there’s only what works and what doesn’t. Effective and ineffective.
There are many very attractive women who don’t spend and don’t need to spend anywhere close to $1,000 a month on their upkeep.
First – no, not really actually. Less than 6% of women in the US in my age range are in my weight category (110-120lbs).
Second – perhaps you could crystallize your actual point, what is it that you’re trying to say? Or are you not doing it because you realize how offensive it would sound lol?
It seems to me, what you’re saying is that a woman like me, who wasn’t genetically blessed with the body that strictly conforms to the contemporary western beauty standards without any extra effort, is somehow less valuable, less deserving.
If you paid any close attention to my list, you’d see that over 50% of the total budget was spent on fitness, massage and skincare. There’s nothing “unnatural” about exercising or taking good care of your skin and body. In fact, when you’re fit and healthy you’ll look better with less incremental effort (i.e. makeup). So, i’ll say it again – if somebody is that genetically blesses, good for them for sure. For the rest of us, it takes work, but it is better to put in the work and get results than not do that.
KK says
Stacy2,
I said, “My only point was complaining about the cost of beauty products / treatments as a way to justify men spending money on women”.
You responded: “I was neither “complaining” about it nor “justifying” it, so it appears you’ve been tilting at windmills all along”.
Earlier, you stated, “So, yes, when I put that much effort into the presentation, I expect a guy to pick up the freaking $50 wine bar tab”.
Moving along…
“There are many very attractive women who don’t spend and don’t need to spend anywhere close to $1,000 a month on their upkeep.
First — no, not really actually. Less than 6% of women in the US in my age range are in my weight category (110-120lbs).”
Whatever your goal weight is, you don’t NEED to spend money on a personal trainer or even a gym membership unless you choose to. By the way, it makes no difference to me how people choose to spend their money, but saying you NEED to spend x amount to get x results is false. You can get the same results by investing in a good pair of running shoes and doing good old fashioned crunches, squats, etc.
“It seems to me, what you’re saying is that a woman like me, who wasn’t genetically blessed with the body that strictly conforms to the contemporary western beauty standards without any extra effort, is somehow less valuable, less deserving”.
No, Stacy, I’ve never said that. Unfortunately, that seems to be what you’ve internalized about yourself. I don’t think you’re even aware of how obvious that is to others.
“If you paid any close attention to my list, you’d see that over 50% of the total budget was spent on fitness, massage and skincare. There’s nothing “unnatural” about exercising or taking good care of your skin and body”.
Agreed. But saying someone has to spend exorbitant amounts of money for any of those items is false.
Tron Swanson says
Stacy2,
“He who doesn’t pay is not interested”? Wow…I just discovered that I’ve apparently never been interested in women in my life! That’s very strange, because my browser history would seem to indicate otherwise.
Nissa says
In Stacy2’s defense (of that one line) I’ve heard that from many people, both men and women. Even in PUA, that’s how it is explained, in terms of how much to ‘invest’ in a girl to get her to put out.
I’d say the idea has merit, not as a black and white rule, but as one point on a list of things to consider when asking oneself if the other person is interested. Meaning that it should also be considered whether or not the person leaned forward, smiled, seemed to be having fun, or actually uttered words that indicated interest. And in practical terms, if a man didn’t offer to pay for the date he asked me on, I’d assume he was not into me. and I would not expect a second date.
Stacy2 says
Interested in what exactly, is the main point. What you’re interested in is not what most women are interested in 🙂
Katie says
The point is, I do all that because I want to be the absolute best version of myself that I can reasonably afford.
Fair enough. But then you can’t go around holding dudes accountable for your choice to splurge on beauty treatments. Like you suggested here…
So, yes, when I put that much effort into the presentation, I expect a guy to pick up the freaking $50 wine bar tab.
Buck25 says
“So, yes, when I put that much effort into the presentation, I expect a guy to pick up the freaking$ 50 wine bar tab.”
OK, Stacy, let’s turn that around, shall we? A guy at the level of looks and income you want spends roughly the following, $ 30 to $ 50 every two weeks getting his hair styled. Up your way, I expect a professional gent gets his hands manicured; let’s say twice a month, $30 (+ tip,of course). Also, proper dress shirt, (tailored, of course $150-$200) Necktie $125 to $195 , Pocket Square, $50 to $100, Suit (tailored, custom) $2500 to $ 5000 +, dress shoes $350 to $700 .Yes I’m aware he needs the clothing for work; my point is, quality men’s clothing isn’t cheap either. Substitute sport coat and dress slacks, for more casual, that’s still $1299 to $1800 for the ensemble, exclusive of the other items. To continue, add in gym memberships, to keep those abs and buns of steel intact, $ 200 to $250 per month. Cologne (high end, no cheap stuff for you) $250 and up per bottle. Oh, and let’s not forget dating expenses. Let’s say he goes on two, sometimes three dates a week until he settles on one woman. Drink tab, $ 50 to $80 each, dinner, $100 to $150+tip, each, and/or theater tickets $50,(and up) each. Dating budget, per week, two dates $300 to $500. Oh and where you are, there’s cab fares etc. ,etc. . Seems like he’s putting more than a little “effort into the presentation” himself, no? Now here’s my question: what do you owe HIM for that? What, exactly, should he expect YOU to do; I mean you’re the one who made this about numbers, didn’t you? Well then, I can make the case that he’s spending more effort and money than you; after all, he has to plan the dates, make the dinner and theater reservations, (considerable investment of time, and time is money, remember?), and of course, if you go dancing there’s the $100 or so he has to tip the guy at the door to get in the exclusive club, and oh,by the way, I left out the $100 for the Maitre de at the fancy restaurant, too. My, my, entertaining you a takes a bit more than a “$50 wine bar tab”, doesn’t it? Now, who owes who what again, since it’s all about the expense of “the effort into the presentation”? From where I sit, I can make the case that strictly based on the numbers, you owe him; The balance sheet needs to balance, remember, (that was your position, not mine). What currency you plan on making up the difference with, darlin’?
Stacy2 says
Oh, no-no. Strictly on the numbers you’re going to lose this battle for sure. I never counted clothing expenses, and women’s clothing and accessories are by FAR more expensive than men’s. I mean there’s just simply no comparison. Including bags and modest-looking jewelry, i typically carry on my body only about $10k worth of stuff on any freaking average day. Every day. Professional designer bags (we’re talking Prada/LV level) that you’ll see women casually carrying around are $2500 a pop. A silk Hermes scarf will set you back $500. Through in a pair of shoes ($800-1000) and the actual clothes – which at a lower level, say Theory – will be about $1000 for an off the rack suit (and the sky is the limit really here) and a nothing-looking jewelry piece (say an Alhambra necklace/bracelet – $5,000) and there you go. Now, manage to not to repeat this ensemble for at least 2 week, and you’ll get a sense of what it costs. Sorry, women’s stuff blows men’s stuff out of the water in terms of price, so you shouldn’t even try to start it LOL.
But this is completely irrelevant and this is why i did not include clothing expenses into my original list. This is fluff, most straight men will not care one way or another, they’re mostly interested in what’s underneath 🙂 Clothes women wear are for other women and for themselves. Same for men.
Now to answer your question: What, exactly, should he expect YOU to do?
See, the way I understand it, based on my experience, most men want to feel important, appreciated, loved, and a bunch of other things. So, that is exactly what I am striving to provide in my relationship – to make them feel this way. It is not my job to pay for stuff or help them fix their lives. I had made that mistake in the past. It is my job to make them feel special.
Buck25 says
@ Stacy,
I’m not gonna let you wriggle off the hook quite that easily. I’ll see your Prada bag and raise you an Oxxford Sport jacket On the jewelry, I’ll see the 10K and raise you 35-45 K for a gold Rolex (depending on the model). I’ll see the shoes, and match you at $950 for the last Crockett and Jones dress boots I bought.In fairness, however we don’t have the amount of turnover in our closet you do, because we can simply go classic and never be really out of style, while you have to change with the fashion trends, at least to a point.
My real point, Stacy, is that, at that level, a man has to spend a good bit to present himself well too, which was kinda my somewhat tongue-in-cheek point about trying to turn a date into a financial transaction, of sorts. I do get exasperated sometimes with your penchant for trying to make life into a damned ledger.
“Clothes women wear are for other women, and for themselves. Same for men.”
Quite true! Thanks for stating that openly with regard to who women dress for; exactly the point both Chance and I tried to make earlier.
That said, your last paragraph is one of the most intelligent comments you’ve ever posted here. That is exactly what most of us want from you. NO real man wants you to help fix his life, or support him. Just make us feel special, wanted and appreciated. That’s all we want . Really.
Stacy2 says
Buck25:
I’ll see the 10K and raise you 35-45 K for a gold Rolex
Eh, you’re aware that Rolex, Omega and Cartier make women’s watches too, gold/diamonds that are likewise more expensive? What is the purpose of this exercise, are we going to get into cars and yachts next? This stuff is irrelevant. Think about it this way: fuller lips increase my sex appeal and a chance of a date, while a Prada bag does not. Similarly, a six pack will increase your sex appeal, while a Rolex – highly unlikely. So in the context of this discussion, it doesn’t make sense to foray into the wardrobe comparisons. The fact remains, that it is much cheaper for an average guy to look his best than it is for a woman to look her best. That is, before they put on any clothes.
I leave you with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-fyKNummog
Quite true! Thanks for stating that openly with regard to who women dress for; exactly the point both Chance and I tried to make earlier.
Yep and that applies to designer/brand clothes only. You can rest assured that no woman has ever undergone a brazilian wax or restyline injections for herself or her female friends.
Chance says
In fairness, I think we’ve been a little too hard on Stacy2. I respect her having the honesty (or, gall, depending on your perspective) to openly admit to what’s really going on during the dating process. Women expect to be financially compensated for access to their sexuality. Now, some people struggle with understanding that when someone makes a generalization, this person understands that the generalization is hardly the rule and that the use of the generalization is for ease of discussion. To be clear, this dynamic is present in women by order of degrees, and for many women, the dynamic is hardly present or not present at all. This dynamic also changes significantly for an individual woman depending on her stage of life, and can not be present at all, for example, when she is young or newly-divorced. However, we all know that if it weren’t for sex, men would be much less willing to do what’s “effective”.
Stacy2 says
Chance:
Women expect to be financially compensated for access to their sexuality.
I agree with you on principle. In fact i didn’t think your analogy with prostitution was that far fetched, in the sense that most human interactions can be described in transactional terms. But obviously when you use a derogatory term people focus on that rather than the actual point.
I do think it is too simplistic though and in reality what is going on is more nuanced. I would compare dating to an auction. Everybody is trying to get as high a clearing price as they can and transact once. In other words, it is quality vs. quantity game. Whereas prostitution is about frequency of the transaction, it’s a volume game. A prostitute does not care about the quality of the men she attracts, the price she charges for “access to her sexuality” is the same, and the more she attracts the better the outcome in that game. For most women dating is a different game. We do not want to attract many men, we want to attract the highest possible quality man we can. We are not in this for free drinks or dinners (though some degenerates are for sure.. ) we’re in it looking for the highest bidder, and dating is simply the process of qualifying such bidder. And yes, most women would not admit to that even on the anonymous forum LOL.
Shaukat says
To be clear, this dynamic is present in women by order of degrees, and for many women, the dynamic is hardly present or not present at all.
In fact, in my experience the dynamic is present only in those women whose ego has, over time, become completely bound up with their outward appearance. As a result, their value is reduced to how closely they approximate a conventional and unattainable standard of beauty, and a man’s worthiness, the flip side of the coin, is demonstrated by how much he can “give/buy you.” A walk in the park, quality time spent together, and nice conversation apparently don’t allow a woman to distinguish between the intent for sex or a relationship, but buying/giving a woman things supposedly does allow one to make that distinction–even though the industry of high end prostitution is predicated on the exchange of money and ‘things’ for sex.
This type of worldview also leads to a toxic sense of entitlement. Take Stacy2’s assertion above that she doesn’t “owe it to some schmuck to go Dutch.” Leaving aside effective strategies and dating conventions, the notion that a woman paying her own damn way in life or on a date should be interpreted as doing a man a favor is too ludicrous to even comment on.
I also find it interesting that when I stated that a woman can look attractive without spending massive amounts of money and time on her appearance, Stacy’s response was predicated on the assumption that attractiveness must be synonymous with a blonde, razor thin fashion model with a coke habit.
Much of this sub-thread has evolved in response to the basic assertion made earlier that time spent by a woman in preparation for a date is not the quid pro quo of a man paying for a date, and that men put in effort to maintain a certain appearance as well. I stand by that original assertion: for confident men and women who are not jaded and cynical, the time spent on basic grooming, fashion, fitness, and overall appearance in preparation for a date is fundamentally the same.
KK says
Chance said, “Women expect to be financially compensated for access to their sexuality”.
Stacy2 said, “I agree with you on principle. In fact i didn’t think your analogy with prostitution was that far fetched, in the sense that most human interactions can be described in transactional terms. But obviously when you use a derogatory term people focus on that rather than the actual point”.
It’s no surprise the two of you agree since you have similar outlooks. What you’re failing to acknowledge is that not everyone has the same mindset. If you think that a married woman is engaging in some form of prostitution because her husband is the primary bread winner, I’d say your logic is severely flawed. The primary reason most people marry is because they’re in love and want to spend their lives together. Yes, if you take love out of the equation, I’m sure you could make the case for it being a transactional relationship. Stacy2 has commented endlessly about wanting a relationship where finances are kept separate but the man must make more than her, which is fine. But if you think your relationship is transactional (that’s what you’ve stated), and all women are engaging in some “nuanced” form of prostitution, then by your own logic, wouldn’t that make you a cheaper prostitute than let’s say a woman that doesn’t work or makes significantly less than a man who is supporting her financially? It seems to me she would be a higher priced prostitute than you. The whole concept is absolutely ridiculous to me and the fact that you, Stacy, believe this about yourself and other women has zero basis in reality. However, if you choose to view yourself as a prostitute (however nuanced), leave the rest of us out of it.
Chance says
KK: you expect a man to provide for you, no? There is only one reason that men on the general whole are willing to provide for a woman in the first place. If you take sex off the table, then generally speaking, you’ll see a lot less men willing to provide for women. That doesn’t mean that men and women don’t appreciate each other for other reasons as well, but if you take sex off the table, then provisioning is taken off the table.
You connect the dots.
KK says
Chance,
What you’re not willing to acknowledge is that most people in relationships / marriages don’t view sex as part of a transaction. It’s one of many things you share as a couple, and whether sex is at the top of your priority list, the bottom, or somewhere in between it doesn’t change the fact that it is not a transactional relationship. In order for it to be a transaction, the woman would only be providing sex in order to receive something. That’s not the case though, is it? Women enjoy sex too. So unless a woman views sex as a means to an end, she’s just a regular woman who wants to be in a mutually satisfying relationship, sexually and otherwise.
Emily, the original says
KK,
What you’re not willing to acknowledge is that most people in relationships / marriages don’t view sex as part of a transaction.
No, no no, Miss KK. The man brings home the bacon and the woman provides the poontang. There is nothing else to a relationship. 🙂
Chance says
KK, and what you’re not willing to acknowledge is that, while women like sex, men like and need sex much more than women. Every relationship in this world is based on reciprocity…. we (especially Americans) just prefer to apply social paint to the arrangement in order to cover up the more utilitarian truth. Even your relationship with your children is based on transactions. When you look at what women and men provide each other within the context of a romantic relationship, most things cancel out (e.g., both partners provide each other with companionship, both share in child-rearing, etc.). The one area where the exchange is generally unequal is when it comes to the financial. However, men are paying for something: access to a woman’s sexuality.
Chance says
“No, no no, Miss KK. The man brings home the bacon and the woman provides the poontang. There is nothing else to a relationship.”
Emily, I think you need to work on your reading comprehension based on a couple of your recent posts. No one ever suggested that there wasn’t anything else to a relationship (or, at least, I didn’t suggest it).
KK says
Chance,
I have no doubt that is the way YOU view relationships and that you feel you have to pay (in your own words) in order to access a woman’s sexuality. I just don’t think you’ve made a convincing argument that all men or most men share your same point of view.
Nor do I believe you know the first thing about parent / child relationships. I can assure you that the parent / child relationship is almost entirely a one- way street. That’s why selfish people shouldn’t procreate.
Emily,
Yeah, yeah. I know. Apparently, these younger people with less life experience know so much more than the rest of us. LOL. (smh)
Chance says
KK, you mean to tell me that you get no sense of purpose or pride in raising children? Exactly.
KK says
Chance,
You’re getting your concepts all confused.
If I go to the store and make a purchase, that is a transaction.
When parents love their children, they take care of them day in and day out simply because they love them. That’s it. No transaction. No motive. Nothing.
What you’re talking about is the result or byproduct of good parenting. That feeling of pride or purpose is not the goal. See the difference?
KK says
The manosphere uses this flawed concept of transactional relationships in an attempt to further degrade women. They view all women as prostitutes. A subset of feminists does as well, but only to degrade women that are not like them. The manosphere hates all women. This subset of feminists hates stay at home wives / mothers simply out of hate / envy. On other threads, Stacy2 has said she can always point out the mommy groups lunching in their Lulu lemons and other snark. Instead of the feminist ideals they claim to promote for all women regardless of their choices, this subset of feminists is jealous of women that have a lifestyle as good or better than theirs without bringing home a paycheck. They will never admit it, but it’s obvious given the snarky commentary. If you don’t believe me, Google: wives as husband’s prostitute. It will pull up a plethora of articles by your buds in the manosphere and also some “supposed” feminists claiming stay at home moms are prostitutes. It’s such a ridiculous and flawed concept, I have a hard time understanding how somewhat intelligent people could believe this. Love and devotion to one’s husband and children is never acknowledged.
Chance says
There is a transaction present regardless of how you prefer to think of it. While parents prefer to think that their decision to have children is rooted in altruism, the decision to have children is as equally selfish at the decision to not have children.
KK says
Again, Chance, your comment only reflects your own mindset.
In parenting, if you take love out of the equation, it makes no sense on a purely practical level to even have children. The cost of raising children would be seen as a total liability. There is no asset.
So, why would anyone choose to have children? Love. They want to share their love with their children. Good parents are altruistic. They don’t view the cost of raising children as a liability because of the love they feel for their children. They see it as an investment in their children for the children’s benefit. Parenting is not selfish. It is selfless.
Stacy2 says
@KK
…claiming stay at home moms are prostitutes. It’s such a ridiculous and flawed concept, I have a hard time understanding how somewhat intelligent people could believe this. Love and devotion to one’s husband and children is never acknowledged.
Oh yeah, because love. Of course that must negate all other perfectly logical arguments. It may not necessarily be your strong suite, but try to bear with me: all relationships are transactional. Prositutution is just one specific type of a transaction. So, while a married woman is engaged in a transactional relationship, she is not a prostitute. Is this clear enough?
All, and i mean all relationships are transactional. You’re engaging in this relationship because you’re getting something out of it. When you’re exchanging “love and devotion” with someone, you are transacting. And I will bet anything, you’re not offering your love and devotion to a homeless man on the corner. But a man who will pay for your lunches in lulus? Sure. Because, love. LOL. Gve me a break would you? Nobody doubts that you actually do feel love and devotion for this person, but the reason you do feel those things is because you’re getting something out of this. Even your decision to have children, ultimately, was made because YOU wanted to get something out of this (a sense of purpose in life or something like that may be) – not a material thing obviously, but some kind of feeling that mattered to you.
If it makes you feel better, men function exactly the same. They get involved with women, and sometimes i see men getting involved with really shitty women, because they’re getting something out of it. Sex is obvious but there’s much more that that. They’re getting this feeling of being important, of being a provider, belonging to certain class or archetype, an ego boost if the wife is hot, and, of course, the love and devotion that you provide. So, you see, it’s all about what we’re getting out of it.
KK says
Stacy2 said,
“Oh yeah, because love.”
Yes. Love.
Marie says
Lol, Stacy2, are you kidding me? I think you are way underestimating the costs. My facials, waxing, and blowouts alone cost $1100 per month. And of course I keep that up after marriage and am not one of those women who let’s herself go. (And yes my money, my makeovers). Yes women’s clothes are expensive. Yes being married to a Frenchman who loves fashion just as much? I only get grief for buying cheap looking crappy stuff. You do really need to share with me who is discounting your stuff so much, though. 🙂
GoWiththeFlow says
Marie,
Especially once women get past a certain age we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. If we spend money to try and maintain or enhance our appearance we’re called vain, selfish, told we have low self esteem, and are told our expenses are excessive. If we cut back or don’t put any effort into it, we have let ourselves go 😉
Stacy2 says
These men (and women) who say things like that are the worst types of hypocrites. They’re toxic and need to be avoided in relationships. I would ignore them completely (and obviously i don’t care about what they think or say.. )
Marie says
Yep, GWTF, society loves to tell women what they should and should not do. I once broke up with a guy on the spot who had the nerve to tell me on Valentine’s Day dinner no less why was it that I can’t/won’t wear jeans. What if I were going somewhere casual, don’t I want to fit in? I said no, why in the world would anyone want to fit in? That’s a most horrible thought. If anything, people ought to want to fit in with ME. :-). So I next’d that one right quick.
Marie says
On a more serious note, to answer the OPs question, my two cents:
1) Context matters. Are you worried about first dates in pubs because you dislike pubs or are secretly worried it signifies he’s just not that into you? If you spend enough time getting to know him before the date with 2/2/2 you should have a clearer idea of his investment and would even be in a better position to counter with “I really have an aversion to pubs because… could we try this cute little mom and pop place on the street corner/picnic/backery shop/walk on the beach etc? People generally have more leverage when the other person is already vested. Besides which, if the date goes well you should already have a plan and be able to steer the other person in the subsequent venues that you want. Usually if you have a clear vision of what you want and can articulate it well, people will usually be happy to go along with it.
2) Know your boundaries and the hill you’re willing to live and die on. If you really don’t like pubs by all means you need to say so, as long as you understand the potential costs. I don’t think you should twist yourself into a pretzel doing something that feels fundamentally wrong to you. Your gut should tell you how far to take this. For me, I hate sports bars. I find them loud, the TVs distracting to both of us, I don’t like beer, and the service is generally not very good. So if they propose a sports bar I will suggest something else otherwise it’s a waste of my time to go because it never turns out well. I cannot be my best self there.
3) Set him up to win. You’re a stranger and men are not mind readers so you need to gently tell him what your preferences are. I pretty much set up a roadmap for my hubby on our first date of my preferences which he used to plan dates for the rest of the month. I was happy, he was happy that I was happy, and I gave him all the credit of planning great dates. Win-win. It’s the same thing with women whining that mean are texting and not calling. I made my preferences clear for calling before we even met. Men can follow directions if they want to, trust me.
Stacy2 says
You know what I hate the most in people? Hypocrisy. So let me tackle this one by one.
@KK:
this subset of feminists is jealous of women that have a lifestyle as good or better than theirs without bringing home a paycheck.
What a treasure chest this statement is . You do realize that in order to have as good or better lifestyle as I do, you’d need to marry a really wealthy man? I am a 1%er, and you’d need double that. Which is ok. Go do that, if you can, i don’t judge. But puleaase, for the love of God, stop your BS about, you know, love and stuff and telling me and others how we should not be filtering for income because, shallow. What’s the matter, afraid of the competition? LOL
Now, another treasure here:
@Shaukat:
Stacy’s response was predicated on the assumption that attractiveness must be synonymous with a blonde, razor thin fashion model with a coke habit.
A fashion model with a coke habit? LOL Can you say “straw man” a bit louder? What i described, in fact, was a healthy, fit, athletic woman who is well groomed and takes good care of her skin, hair and overall health.
But your hypocrisy extends beyond constructing this caricature of what i actually said. See the thing is, you want exactly this type of woman that I described. You and all men like you, heck, most all men want exactly this kind of woman.
Make you chose between a fit blonde with radiant skin and a woman size 24 with acne and hair on her upper lip and you will all make the same choice. Every single one of you, given the opportunity. So why are you denigrating women for making an effort to look exactly like the most of you want them to look? Oh… i get it. You wan’t them to look like that without any effort, right? You want the ultimate “cool girl” who rolls out of bed looking like Kate Upton on the cover of Vogue, gives you a bj and proceeds to eat a stack of pancakes? You are either dumb as a box of hammers (if you think it’s possible) or, more likely, your’re simply a toxic person who is in this to denigrate women. My money is on the latter. And any normal woman would be crazy to take anything you say seriously
Shaukat says
Stacy, you are one of the most bitter, resentful, jaded and cynical characters I have ever come across, but again, your posts are entertaining. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
KK says
Stacy2,
This may come as a complete shock to you but there are women who end up in relationships / marriages with the men you’re desperately trying to attract without strategically attempting to do so, much less making it a life goal. It doesn’t make one a hypocrite to point that out.
Stacy2 says
And some people win the lottery, Captain Obvious. And?
If you want to see desperate, btw, check out a 44yo divorcee with no marketable skills whose alimony is scheduled to end in 2 years. Lol. There’s no desperate here.
Chance says
Agree. Alimony is probably one of the most obvious manifestations of a subversively money-for-sex relationship that existed ostensibly for “love”.
KK says
Stacy2,
Did you even read Kanga’s comment? More than once, other ladies on here (including me) have tried to explain to you that snagging some ultra wealthy guy is not going to make you happy. There are plenty of wealthy people who have integrity and all the other positive qualities one would want in a mate, but if you filter for wealth first instead of those important qualities, I don’t think your odds of ending up with a great guy are too good. Anyway, you seem to have it all figured out, including your (not desperate attempts to make yourself into something you’re not to try to attract wealthy men) so good luck.
KK says
Well, Chance, I hope you’re prepared to pay it, since you yourself have stated that it makes more sense for the wife to stay home and raise the children.
Chance says
KK, that is not accurate. I said there were certain circumstances where it would make more sense for a spouse to stay home. I’m also never getting married, and even if I were to get married, I would prefer to marry a woman who actually made something of herself to the point that staying home would never look like an attractive option for either one of us.
KK says
“I’m also never getting married, and even if I were to get married, I would prefer to marry a woman who actually made something of herself to the point that staying home would never look like an attractive option for either one of us”.
I’m glad you used the word ‘prefer’ here because in other commentary you seem to place an awful lot of negative judgment against couples who have different preferences, regardless of how accomplished the wife is when they get married.
Chance says
KK, not sure where you got that. What a couple decides to do is their own business. It seems like you always just want to have the last word. So, I’ll have some fun with that… I’m gonna keep going just to see how long you’re willing to go just to have the last word.
Chance says
KK: Actually, I change my mind. I’m not willing to go on with you because I don’t think you’ll ever stop. This is my last post to you. Ever.
“I’m glad you used the word ‘prefer’ here because in other commentary you seem to place an awful lot of negative judgment against couples who have different preferences”
I’m struggling to wrap my mind around this kind of lack of self-awareness. KK, pretty much all you do here is judge people who have different preferences than you. I mean, largely, there really anything else that you do. This is it. You have to know this about yourself, right? If so, then do you just think of the stupidest possible things to say just to see how people will react? I think I get it now….. the joke’s on me. No one is this dumb.
Shaukat says
Actually, I change my mind. I’m not willing to go on with you because I don’t think you’ll ever stop. This is my last post to you.
Too bad. I was getting ready to be entertained;)
Tom10 says
@ Shaukat #40.2.2
“Too bad. I was getting ready to be entertained;)”
Lol, me too.
In fact, I actually sense some sexual tension between Chance and KK; they seem to really enjoy teasing each other. Hahaha.
Emily, the original says
Tom10,
In fact, I actually sense some sexual tension between Chance and KK; they seem to really enjoy teasing each other. Hahaha.
Agreed! Maybe we should all chip in so they can get a room! 🙂
(I’m joking, of course.)
KK says
I was green with envy from all the attention he’s been giving to Stacy2. Perhaps I need to work on my subtelty. ; )
Emily, the original says
KK,
I was green with envy from all the attention he’s been giving to Stacy2. Perhaps I need to work on my subtelty. ; )
No, no, Miss KK! This is a dog-eat-dog world! It’s dating! You do ALL you have to do! Be the girl who shows up wearing a tank top and no bra!
Kanga says
“I am a 1%er” – This is why Stacy has her attitude. She lives in a rarified atmosphere provided by Daddy dearest who is as shallow as her. If she didn’t look good, what else would her possible contribution be to a relationship? That’s how she has been brought up. We can’t blame her and she can and will live a perfectly happy life because in my experience 1%ers don’t have the capacity to think much deeper than branding etc. Also, their money protects them from ever needing to think about anything else. They can and do actually go through the whole of their lives in a bubble. Having been poor and also in a relationship with a 1%er, I found the atmosphere stifling, boring and shallow but you must understand they do NOT. They can’t even see themselves in any way but superior in every way. There is really no use trying to tell Stacy2 there is something more to life than looks and money. Her whole experience denies that paradigm and as long as she remains a 1%er, she won’t ever have the need to grow. After she prostitutes herself to have children with another 1%er, predictably she will become ‘spiritual’ and have an eat, pray , love experience that will be just as predictably white bread as every other botoxed 1%er over 40. She will think what she is feeling and doing is original but because she does live in a bubble will have no clue her very predictable 1% life has been mapped from birth. When she has her spiritual awakening she will also not shut up about it, lol. God, those women are the worst when they realise ‘wow, we can be deep, just like the plebs – pass me the Dom’.
Stacy2 doesn’t need sympathy or reviling – she simply doesn’t have any capacity to understand anything outside of her experience. She will be protected from reality her whole life, will do the spiritual thing in her 40s because she will realise, shock horror, people get old and she will feel she is actually doing something meaningful. She may influence her sphere but in the long run she will be kept away from real life and never experience it and she does not want to, unless it involves 1000 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets.
She isn’t bitter or jaded – this is their world. It’s the pinnacle of capitalism – it’s what every American strives for. Some of them write a book – “I had everything, but I was unhappy and then I realised what really matters”. Don’t be fooled – those books are to tap into a market, they don’t ever have these feelings. And if Stacy isn’t on Coke – I’d be super surprised. These people snort like no tomorrow and that’s part of how they lose their humanity. Nothing like coke to make you shallow AF. Stacy will have a golden life and money will protect her every bad decision. She has no idea how plebs view her and she is also not interested. That’s my observation of my time with the 1%ers.
Stacy2 says
@kanga
every last penny I have I’ve made myself. All of your other conjectures are equally ridiculous. Based on what you wrote before about writing love notes to a paycopath, it is highly doubtful you are fit to give anyone advise on dating. Just saying.
Henriette says
Dear Kanga – More than a few posters who comment on on this site are 1%ers. Please stop with the prejudicial comments. It’s not acceptable to make disparaging comments about large swaths of the population. If you have issues with Stacy2, please address them to her, directly, without the ugly blanket statements.
Kanga says
I’m not sure people with multi-millions have a lot of time to spend commenting on blogs and are in need of dating advice. Do you really think that there are more than a few multi-millionaires and billionaires here, looking for advice? That would not have been my guess at all. and we can only take their word for it that they are multi millionaires. I would have thought anything under 10 million would not be 1% and I think that’s being very conservative. In Australia to be in the top 1% you need at least 11 million in assets and over 1 million in petty cash. I only know a few people in that category close enough to call on their personal mobile for example (actually one I know doesn’t even own a mobile!! She’s almost uncontactible by people who don’t know her very very well). 1% is 1% – by it’s very definition – is not a large swath of the population. It is exactly only 1% of the population. I can sympathise with the 1%ers who believe they need someone with more money than them to date – that would be very difficult in this present market. For Stacy who wants somebody with double her money, she needs to find someone with at least 22 million in assets alone and over 2 million in spare cash kicking around. I’m also certain that 1%ers could care less about what people say about them, although I guess in hindsight some of the 1%ers I know personally do NOT fall into the paradigm I described and I would apologise to them. I don’t have issues with Stacy – I think her POV is perfectly understandable.
Stacy2 says
Dear Kanga: here in the US this term is used to group people by income rather than assets. The IRS puts the national average for 1pc top income at around 500k. Just thought I’d save you some further agony and embarrassment since Google is clearly not your friend.
Henriette says
@ Kanga, here in Canada, “1%ers” are all who earn an annual income of Cdn $191,100 or more (which is equivalent to earning upward of US $142,000). And that’s pre-tax, in a country that has the second-highest personal tax rate in the G7. The majority of our “1%ers” are managers, lawyers, finance people, engineers, doctors and dentists.
You’re telling us that all these folks think about nothing but branding, live in bubbles, snort coke? There are almost 300,000 of them. You wouldn’t call that a large swath? You don’t believe that plenty of the posters here at EMK might fall into this category?
I’m truly sorry you had a bad experience with a shallow, overprotected rich guy. I had a bad experience with a Pakistani; I would not, however, be justified in asserting that, “dark-skinned men are skeevy liars who have unhealthy relationships with their mothers.”
I certainly don’t agree with all Stacy2 writes, but I’m grateful for her honest posts. One of the many thought-provoking elements of this blog is the comments from people of all different backgrounds and mind-sets. I want to read what you think, too. Please… just edit out your sweeping prejudicial statements and personal insults.
Shaukat says
Hi Henriette,
The definition of the top 1% turns on the type of criteria used by the analysts. Some economists employ net worth (assets-liabilities), excluding primary residence, as opposed to income. This is actually a more meaningful definition, since it goes without saying that someone with an annual salary of 140k but a debt burden of 200k isn’t actually all that wealthy. Using the former definition, many of the professionals you described would not fall into the 1% category.
Henriette says
Thanks, @Shaukat. In Canada, a net worth (cars, house, jewellery, savings, everything) of above US $1.42 million makes one a 1%er. I’m not sure how extravagantly people could live on that sum total in your town, but please check out real estate prices in Toronto or Vancouver to get a hint of how far it goes, here.
However, my purpose wasn’t to educate readers on the exact paramaters of the Canadian 1%. I was illustrating the bigger point that it’s ridiculous for Kanga to assert that 1%ers use hard drugs or only care about thread count and brands. The wealthy ~ be they entrepreneurs, inheritors, professionals, investors, lottery winners… ~ are a diverse group who cannot simply be dismissed as a pack of coke-heads and bubble-dwellers any more than all lower income people have multiple “baby mamas” and smoke crack.
Chance says
“And if Stacy isn’t on Coke — I’d be super surprised. These people snort like no tomorrow and that’s part of how they lose their humanity.”
I am positively stunned this comment got through.
Evan Marc Katz says
Me, too. I am going to talk with my assistant about this.
Kanga says
Sorry I was replying to whoever wrote that Stacy2 viewed beauty as a skinny, white, blonde coke head. I shouldn’t have made his/her comment towards Stacy2 as personal to Stacy her/himself.
Evan Marc Katz says
Kanga, don’t do that again on my blog. We can argue about issues all we want. We can’t attack individuals. Future comments like this will be censored. If you continue with them, they will be deleted. I disagree with a good 50% of the way Stacy presents things, but she has the right to speak her POV, however distasteful, as long as she’s not attacking you. That’s how adults argue.
Kanga says
Yes, of course, it was personal to Stacy2 and how she came across. I am unreservedly sorry and apologise for going overboard to you for using your blog to do so and to Stacy2 as well.
I don’t necessarily find her POV distasteful at all. It is unswerving, that’s for sure, but perfectly understandable to me, given my experiences.
Thank you for pointing this error out to me.
Marie says
Kanga, your comment is a bridge too far. Just because you had a relationship end badly with a 1%er doesn’t mean you should take it out on Stacy2 or other 1%ers. People of all income levels are capable of doing good things and bad things, have healthy habits or be addicted to drugs. Have you kept up on the opioid and heroin epidemic lately? Furthermore, being a 1%er doesn’t mean you were born with wealth. Many people worked their way up. And even if you were born wealthy, that doesn’t inherently make you a bad person. Maybe you should worry a little bit less about wealth and class envy and focus more on actually picking the right men.
Henriette says
Yup.
Shaukat says
she has the right to speak her POV, however distasteful, as long as she’s not attacking you. That’s how adults argue.
I would agree with that, and I agree that Kanga’s remarks about snorting coke and wealth inheritance were baseless. However, I’d also point out that this was the closing sentence of Stacy2’s last response to me:
You are either dumb as a box of hammers (if you think it’s possible) or, more likely, you’re simply a toxic person who is in this to denigrate women. My money is on the latter.
I don’t take it personally and I wouldn’t ever demand that any comment be censored, but for those who would say that Kanga’s comment was personal and went too far, in this particular context I would simply state the clichéd adage”you reap what you sow,” is particularly apt.
Stacy2 says
@Shaukat:
Just so it is clear. I stated that I spend a lot of money on staying fit (ie gym/personal trainers). Somehow, that translated into you saying that my standard of beauty are coked up models. Next thing I know, your buddy Kanga says it’s not surprising I snort coke.
This really is a perfect illustration of how rumors and bullying starts and progresses in real life. Obviously, not that I care what either you or her thinks. I have already formed very unfavorable opinions on both of your characters.
I just find it amusing that you and Kanga actually think that you have any sort of moral high ground over me. You thought I was jaded? No. Experienced. With characters like these. Enough to snuff them out very quickly.
Katie says
(Stacy2) Somehow, that translated into you saying that my standard of beauty are coked up models.
You stated that your aesthetic standard in the dating scene was models. No obscure translation necessary.
(Stacy2) Those are women who are already naturally blonde (or have another rich hair color —snip- who are naturally very skinny and stay that way without working out, who have genetically perfect skin and big full lips, and are otherwise blessed with all the other markers of attraction which the rest of us have to make up for. And guess what? These unique creatures are walking down fashion show runways and in between they’re dating tech industry billionaires whose idea of a first date is a private plane ride to the bahamas.
Katie says
PS. I intentionally ignored the coke part cause that’s just silly.
Stacy2 says
Perhaps, Katie, you misunderstood but this is not my standard. It is the society’s standard that has been imposed on all of us – and it is a standard because most men want exactly that. So for a guy to salivate over an issue of sports illustrated filled with D-cupped 24” waist models but then to bash other women for putting in effort to look like that as “vain” and other things is the top and the worst brand of hypocrisy. If it’s not their standard of beauty, then men should put their money where their mouth is – stop buying these magazines for starters, and then start dating women who are not conforming to these standards of beauty. Are you seeing them doing that? Nah. Me neither. Playboy, SI, etc. are firmly entrenched and studies done by OLD platforms like okcupid on bigdata (google it) show conventionally attractive women getting 4x as many emails as “average looking” and 25x more than women not conventionally attractive. So, i will say it again – all the guys slamming women for being “vain and shallow” need to simply shutup. Women will stop being shallow when men will stop being pigs. Which will be never.
KK says
Stacy2 said, “Women will stop being shallow when men will stop being pigs. Which will be never”.
Hmm. I’m not sure how you’ve come to the conclusion that being vain or shallow is anyone else’s fault; much less the fault of an entire gender. If someone is vain or shallow, that’s their own personal flaw and they need to own that. Personally, I think it’s healthy to always be the best version of ourselves for our own happiness. Having men find you attractive is not without it’s own set of potential problems. I have no idea what you think, but I don’t want to be with anyone solely because they find me attractive. I’d prefer it if they cared about me for who I am and not just what I look like.
Shaukat says
Are you seeing them doing that?
Yes, I am seeing men date women who don’t conform to that standard of beauty, just like I see women dating men who don’t conform to the standard set by Hugh Jackman in Wolverine or Pitt in Fight Club (extremely low body fat percentage, around 6-7%, and high muscle ratio).
I think I understand where your anger and resentment come from now. You spend a great amount of time and energy trying to attain a certain standard of beauty in order to attract a very specific type of man, who you then conflate with all men, and as a result you lash out at society for making women adhere to such standards to attract those type of men in the first place. You have no one but yourself to blame for that, and you certainly can’t claim it’s a quid pro quo for the man paying on dates. I’d say the same thing about a man who cycles through steroids and remains in a calorie deficit most of the year in order to attract a specific type of woman, and then whines and complains how unfair it all is.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big believer in fitness and working out to look good, but I don’t blame an entire gender for that.
Stacy2 says
I am seeing men date women who don’t conform to that standard of beauty
Yup. After they fail to get those most attractive, hot women they do indeed date whoever they can get, because, I presume, from a guy’s standpoint some sex is better than no sex. But make no mistake, those ones who can get that hot girl are not going for a chubby but sweet type. Doesn’t happen.
in order to attract a very specific type of man
And what “specific type” would that be? Are talking about, like, 2/3 of people on OKC? Because…
“..2/3 of male messages go to the top 1/3 of women… Guys are fighting each other 2-for-1 for these absolute best rated females, while plenty of potentially charming, even cute, girls go unwrittem”
Hmm…
Are women doing the same thing? Turns out, no, they’re not:
“… ..the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes and messages them anyway”.
The most attractive guys get 11x the messages the lowest-rated do. For women this ratio is 28x. Put differently, Female attractiveness is 2.8x more important in the dating process compared to male attractiveness.
So… you were saying? “don’t blame an entire gender for that.” – really?
Of course, these stats have simply confirmed what women have known for ages: yes, men are absolutely wired this way and they all want that hot girl.
We simply cater to the target audience.
So, i will say it again: men who call women “vain” for trying to be hot are full of shit, hypocrites and need to shut up (or please go to OKC and start messaging those non-hot gals already!!)
Shaukat says
You’re drawing the wrong inference from that study. The male ratings for female attractiveness were normally distributed, the fact that the men wrote to the most attractive females in greater numbers at the beginning can be attributed to the fact that men are the approachers, in both real life and online. In an online setting where approach anxiety is minimal, it makes sense that men will try their luck with the most sought after females.
Moreover, this fact says nothing about the preferences of women and whether females are any less superficial than men. If you go to a bar or a club and you observe large numbers of men approaching attractive females throughout the night but don’t observe the women making any approaches, does that necessarily say anything about the preferences of the most attractive females, or even females in general? Also, the same study stated that women may not write to the most attractive men as much die to feelings of inadequacy, which has to do with confidence and says nothing about tastes and preferences.
Stacy2 says
the fact that the men wrote to the most attractive females in greater numbers at the beginning can be attributed to the fact that men are the approachers, in both real life and online.
This statement is such a radical assault on logic its not even funny. First: sure. It can be attributed to that, or to the fact that Saturn was in retrograde, or to the global warming… yeah. You can make up any explanation but it is not supported by the data. The cold fact when you look at the results of this study at face value remains: men judge attraction accurately but pass on “cute” to chase “hot”. Period.
Second, this doesn’t even make any sense. Ok say it is attributable to the fact that men are “approachers”. So why are their approaches not normally distributed along the line of attractiveness as they judge it?? It should be, but it’s not. Because, see above — men chase hot women in high numbers.
Now, lets look at other facts, not conjectures, or what you think may explain various things, not some alternative facts, real cold facts.
1. From OKC study we know that men tend to disproportionately target hot women, while passing on the ones they deem merely cute or good looking (let alone – ugly)
2. Women on average still make less than men (see:
3. Basic women’s products (not fancy stuff, we’re talking basic deodorants and such) cost 10-13% more than similarly formulated products for men (per government studies) with some items costing as much as . In fact this has been bad enough for some states like CA to consider legislation that would ban “gender pricing” in retail (gender pricing in services was banned in 1995) [collection of links:
4. As some men posters correctly pointed out, men need and enjoy sex more than women, and it shouldn’t come as a surprise that we have about 20% “orgasm gap”: http://www.healthline.com/health-news/women-have-fewer-orgasms-than-men-082114
5. ..and females are 5.3x more likely to be victims of an assault by a romantic partner compared to males [study:
===
So what do these real facts add up to, in terms of a female experience? Basically, as an average woman, you make 20% less than an average guy, have to spend 10% more on the identical products; you must be in the top 1/3 of the hotness to generate some interest, and then assuming you managed that you get to go on a date – where a guy will decide whether or not he wants to have sex with you, and if you do end up having sex you’re 20% less likely to orgasm but 5x more likely to get assaulted. Whew! What a fucking treat!! And you’d like to go dutch while she’s sitting there and you’re deciding whether or not you’d like to fuck her?
This is a female perspective for you. These are facts, of what it is to be a woman today. Not that I am complaining. Heck, 100 years ago men wouldn’t let us vote and have checking accounts. But in case you’re wondering – yes, there absolutely is something wrong with your gender as a whole, and the best thing you can do is to be a decent human being and freaking pay for her glass of wine. It’s not her problem that you want to audition 30 women per month to maximize your getting laid and it gets expensive. Really.
Chance says
Stacy2, there’s something wrong with women as a whole, too. There’s something wrong with humanity as a whole, but we do the best we can, and continually strive to improve. However, it’s BS to attempt to justify unfair social customs with this kind of reasoning.
Also, please provide evidence that the pay gap is due to unfair treatment of women. Until then, we are just going to have to assume that the pay gap is due to women choosing the wrong careers and/or not working hard enough.
Stacy2 says
@Chance:
there’s something wrong with women as a whole, too.
Fair enough. I am sure through centuries of mistreatment women have developed social compensation mechanisms that may look “unfair” or “wrong” to you against the modern reality. Just remember cause and effect.
Also, please provide evidence that the pay gap is due to unfair treatment of women. Until then, we are just going to have to assume that the pay gap is due to women choosing the wrong careers and/or not working hard enough.
FYI these comparisons are done by profession. They are not comparing surgeons to maids. They compare surgeons to surgeons and find that female surgeons still make less. Perhaps they are not pushing their scalpels “hard enough”. Sure.
Heck, Yahoo’s new (male) CEO will run a company a fraction of a size of former Yahoo and yet will make a double of what its previous (female) CEO made. Hollywood actresses are getting paid less than their male co-leads in movies. Are you shitting me? This goes all the way to the top. Sometimes they’re even honest (or stupid) enough to admit it. In their own words:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-22/tech-start-up-founder-says-women-are-like-men-only-cheaper
Chance says
Stacy2, I can fully sympathize with you as penis envy seems to be a difficult condition to assuage. However, you’ll need to do better than to cite studies that don’t get to the heart of the matter or parrot cherry-picked, second-hand anecdotes to support your case. Please provide evidence that demonstrates that women are being discriminated against as it relates to pay. Simply illustrating pay gaps does not count as providing evidence of discrimination or mistreatment.
Until then, Stacy2, don’t wish that things were easier for women. Wish that women were better.
Stacy2 says
@Chance
Also, please provide evidence that the pay gap is due to unfair treatment of women.
I think for an internet forum, a public confession of a company owner that he pays more qualified women less than un-qualified men, will do.
You want more “evidence”? Go on LexisNexis in your local library and read through court cases on pay discrimination. They will have court-accepted “evidence” from depositions, documents and the like. Like the one of Heidi Wilson:
Wilson was paid $75,329 when she was promoted to manage a Tampa service center. However, her male predecessor was paid more than $129,000 the year before, according to a report in the Tampa Bay Times. In 2011, she was bypassed for another raise and objected. Shortly thereafter she was fired without severance and took the case to court. In 2012, Wilson won the case–and was awarded nearly $340,000 in back pay.
And “penis envy”? LOL Come’on now.
Chance says
Stacy2, by all appearances, the guy in the article you referenced was engaging in a total PR ploy, and ironically, it backfired (and, predictably, he back-tracked from his initial claim). I also noticed that he didn’t provide an ounce of evidence to support his claim. Since it’s executive management’s job to maximize shareholder wealth, virtually everyone would be hiring more women if they were, in fact, cheaper. That’s why, statistically and pragmatically, the claim that women are cheaper for no other reason than that they are women is ridiculous. Also, cherry-picking lawsuits doesn’t prove much, either. One would need to provide a study that shows that women are being systematically discriminated against, while controlling for as many other factors as possible.
Shaukat says
Stacy, the OkCupid study was a snapshot of a particular period of time, it was not a longitudinal study. In other words, yes, men messaged the most attractive women, but that says nothing about which people eventually pair up, nor does it say anything about the preferences and tastes of women, conventionally attractive or not. The same study stated that the female attractiveness ratings of men were skewed, and that women likely weren’t messaging the most attractive men due to a lack of confidence (which doesn’t at all support your theory that women are more forgiving of looks or less selective).
You seem to begrudge men for approaching conventionally attractive women. Why? In your bizarre world, man-sees-attractive-woman,-man-approaches-man-gets-date. In your world, you make no room for the fact that many men have to invest massive amounts of time in marketing themselves as well, by packing on muscle, losing fat, buying nice clothes, getting their hair styled well, cold approaching dozens of women at bars, during the day, or online, facing multiple rejections, before getting a return on their investment. And yes, many men might have to adjust their preferences downward, but women also can only select from the group of men who are interested in them. However, using your own logic, the effort men put into marketing themselves to specific types of women should cancel out the effort women have to put into their appearance. This is what several commenters have said, but you simply dismiss it.
Your points 2-5, while important issues, are irrelevant to the topic of dating. and so I see no reason to address them. It might surprise you, however, to learn that you and I would likely agree on several of those points you raised.
Emily, the original says
Shakut
You make no room for the fact that many men have to invest massive amounts of time in marketing themselves as well … by cold approaching dozens of women at bars, during the day, or online, facing multiple rejections, before getting a return on their investment.
I am not a man and I am not asking in a sarcastic way, but do you think that men have a tendency to approach women out of their league? If you look around at married couples, for the most part, the man and woman are fairly well matched in terms of attractiveness. For a man who is average looking, is it a good investment to only message/approach the most attractive women?
GoWiththeFlow says
Shaukat,
“In other words, yes, men messaged the most attractive women, but that says nothing about which people eventually pair up, nor does it say anything about the preferences and tastes of women, conventionally attractive or not.”
What it does say, however, is that a woman making herself as attractive as possible is an effective dating strategy since the most attractive women get the most attention and the most opportunities. Yes the men may eventually wind up with women who are in the mere mortal range of the SMV scale. But that’s AFTER they’ve taken a crack at the hottest women.
Shaukat says
I am not a man and I am not asking in a sarcastic way, but do you think that men have a tendency to approach women out of their league?
Hi Emily, there are a couple of points I would make in response to this question. First, the process of discovering one’s own ‘league’ is itself the result of trial and error, which involves approaching and getting rejected, altering techniques/strategies, and eventually adjusting preferences and goals.
Second, you seem to be suggesting that men should just be content with their SMV and approach within their league if they don’t like rejection. However, the entire argument you and some other female posters have been making is that it takes a lot of effort for women to beauty themselves up to attract high quality men. If I said that you should just give up on the blowouts, the pedis/manicures, the waxing, the makeup, and everything else, and then just focus on the men who are attracted to you in your natural state, would you think that’s reasonable? Point being, men who want to attract a certain type of woman also have to put a lot of effort into raising their SMV, and its not as effortless as some posters here seem to think. Spending months at the gym to gain 2olbs of muscle and reduce body fat to 12%, for example, to say nothing of the investment in stylish clothes, shouldn’t be scoffed at. And I’m not even talking about the effort men have to put into improving their game, banter, building their confidence to approach, etc.
@GWTF,
I would never begrudge you the effort you put into improving your SMV to attract as many desirable men as possible. The only points I’ve been making is that females posters are underestimating the effort that men have to put into improving their own SMV, and that neither gender should try and leverage the decision to invest in their appearance in order to justify some other custom.
Buck25 says
@ GWTF,
“Yes the men may eventually wind up with women who are in the mere mortal range of the SMV scale. But that’s AFTER they’ve taken a crack at the hottest women.”
Precisely. Especially online, most guys will at least try messaging the hottest women, and why not? No approach anxiety, no risk of public rejection; little chance of success but a slight chance is better than NO chance at all. I can make a case that it’s far from stupid for any guy to do this (low-effort, low-risk, potentially high reward) so long as those aren’t the only women he messages (and we don’t know that from the infamous OK Cupid study), and/or dates IRL, “in his own league”. It’s really no different from the PUA tactic of simply making approach after approach to the hottest women first, both becoming more skilled (we hope) as well as making it a numbers game. If (and a lot of guys are), he’s primarily satisfied with hookups as opposed to finding a long-term girlfriend, it’s a pretty effective strategy. Once a guy decides to settle down, he’ll most likely do it with someone other than that 9 or 10, either because he can’t consistently pull those women, or he can, but finds the hot women he dates are not necessarily relationship material themselves. So, despite how that study looks, the “mere mortal women” usually do get their man in the end (they have to, really; there aren’t enough hot women to take them all, though they might get more of the hotter guys). They just have to work a little harder, just like the guys who aren’t 9s and 10s themselves. I’d guess that’s true for most age groups, but especially the 21 t0 40 set.
Emily, the original says
Shaukat,
I am not begrudging anyone the efforts he/she makes in ratcheting up his/her SMV. If those efforts place him/her in the top 20%, then he/she can reasonably expect to land a partner in the same top percentage. People, for the most part, mate assortatively and partner up with people with similar levels of attractiveness, education and income. In terms of a man below that 20% thinking he can land a top-tier woman with enough attempts, I would have know way of knowing if that’s possible, but I’m guessing a hot partner is something one earns with repeated requests.
Emily, the original says
Sorry, I meant to type a hot partner is NOT something one earns with repeated requests.
GoWiththeFlow says
Shaukat, Buck, Emily,
I have mentioned at least twice in other comments that the extra time and money that women in general and an individual woman specifically spend on appearance DOES NOT entitle her to paid dates. It seems as if some of the men commenters are diminishing the pressure, both internal and societal, that women feel to be as attractive as possible, and the resultant effort they put into it, because “conceding” on this point would weaken the case that men see planning and paying for dates as a burden that they sometimes resent.
What I’m interested in exploring is how women spending time and money trying to make themselves as physically attractive as possible to men is a similar experience to how men ask for, plan for, and pay for dates. Both are effective strategies. Both men and women, at times, may truly get pleasure out of doing it. Both men and women may sometimes resent “having” to do it. Both men and women at times wish that society and the opposite sex would change so that it’s not an effective strategy. Both get bashed if they publicly say “this sucks”.
Emily, the original says
GoWiththeFlow,
What I’m interested in exploring is how women spending time and money trying to make themselves as physically attractive as possible to men is a similar experience to how men ask for, plan for, and pay for dates. Both are effective strategies.
I completely agree with you. That’s all I was ever trying to say. Both strategies are effective at attracting the opposite sex. It became, however, a protracted debate about how one side pays more and how the issues were being conflated. Or that I have no idea how much time/effort men spend on their appearance.
Emily, the original says
GoWiththeFlow
And all I was saying to Shaukat was that all of us have to be reasonable as to who we expect to attract.
GoWiththeFlow says
Hey Emily,
Just reread my comment, and it absolutely sounds like criticism. That wasn’t my intent and I’m sorry. I think we share the same frustration that the bigger picture doesn’t get discussed because we are so far down in the weeds looking at individual dandelions that we miss the whole meadow.
KK says
GWTF and Emily,
I agree with both of you. It costs more and takes more time and effort for a woman to get ready to go out than the time and effort it takes for a man. I also agree that this fact doesn’t mean the man should pay for the date. (In my opinion, he should only pay for the date if he wants a second date).
I think what Shaukat was getting at (and I apologize in advance if I misunderstood), is that most women aren’t spending more or putting more effort into getting ready for a date than they do regularly. If that’s what he meant, I agree with him.
Emily, the original says
GoWiththeFlow,
Just reread my comment, and it absolutely sounds like criticism. That wasn’t my intent and I’m sorry.
No problem. I didn’t read your comment as criticism.
I think we share the same frustration that the bigger picture doesn’t get discussed because we are so far down in the weeds looking at individual dandelions that we miss the whole meadow.
Exactly. I’ve been guilty of it myself. Going round in round with other posters about small details. One thing I have learned is how much is expected of men as those who have to approach, plan, pay, move things forward, etc. I was reading a post on Hooking Up Smart and a guy was saying he sometimes feels that if he makes one wrong move in these early stages, however small, the girl is gone. Poof. And often he doesn’t even know he made that wrong move until she disappears. (I would assume women can feel this way as well: What did I do? What just happened?)
Emily, the original says
KK,
I think what Shaukat was getting at (and I apologize in advance if I misunderstood), is that most women aren’t spending more or putting more effort into getting ready for a date than they do regularly.
Actually, I will spend more time if I really like the guy. I don’t shave everyday. Why should I? It’s long pants weather where I live, and it’s not like Richard Gere is going to show up where I work and carry me off! 🙂 But if I like the guy, I’ll shave. That adds 10 minutes. My hair is naturally wavy. For work, I let it air dry and then bump it up with a curling iron for 10 minutes. But if I like the guy, I’ll beat it down/straighten it and recurl/reset it. Takes about 30 minutes. So that’s an extra half hour right there. If, however, I’m on the fence about the date, it’s natural hair and full-on Sasquatch.
But that’s me. YMMV
KK says
Emily,
Gotcha. 😊 It’s all about different perspectives I suppose. I don’t put any extra effort into my date night appearance than I would a night out with girlfriends and I shave daily simply out of habit, but that’s just me. I do know women who absolutely hate to shave, though. A friend of mine once commented about how much she loves wearing Capri pants in the summer because she only had to shave a few inches above her ankles. LOL. She’s had laser hair removal done since then and absolutely loves it. I also know people on the other extreme who refuse to leave their house without a 2 to 3 hour beautifying session just to stop by the grocery store. LOL.
Emily, the original says
KK,
She’s had laser hair removal done since then and absolutely loves it.
I tried to do that, but I’m a blonde and the lasers don’t work on light hair.
I used to put in a lot more effort even for an every day look, but I just don’t see the point anymore. There is no one to impress where I work.
Shaukat says
@Emily,
kk is right, I was partially alluding to the notion that women generally spend time on their appearance anyway. However, my other point, which you and GWTF seem to not want to grapple with at all, is that if you include the time that men have to invest in their appearance and physique in order to attract the women who meet their looks threshold, then the alleged discrepancy between the preparation time men and women go through as part of the mating game vanishes.
GoWiththeFlow says
KK & Emily,
As far as date nights go, I do put in time on my appearance, especially if it takes place after work. I’m in an OR all day under one of those surgical caps that does wonders for the hair–not! So a shower, shampoo, and hairstyle is needed. Plus at work, wearing strong scents or perfumes is discouraged. So I like to be able to kick that up a notch before I go out with scented lotion and perfume. But that’s just me.
I don’t expect men to really get what a day in the life of a woman is like. What really bugs me is the amount of criticism a few women commenters are willing to heap on other women who will do outrageous things like, GASP!, get a facial once a month, or remove hair with wax versus Nair.
Since my two younger kids are Disney move age, one theme that has struck me in recent years (and that goes along with Buck’s observations of female jealousy and competition with other women mentioned above) is that of women envying other women for their beauty and youth. Snow White, Rapunzel, Cinderella all have this as a central theme. Also attributing beauty to magic or a trick as well. Heck, in Game of Thrones, the character Cersei fears a prophecy that says she will be replaced by a younger, more beautiful queen.
As a society and as individuals, we seem to have deep conflicts within as to the role of female beauty in life and society. How much accentuating of beauty is acceptable? How much until it is a trick or a fraud? Why should beauty matter at all? At the end of the day, what remains is that as far as gaining men’s sexual/romantic interest, a woman accentuating her beauty is an effective strategy.
Emily, the original says
Shaukat,
then the alleged discrepancy between the preparation time men and women go through as part of the mating game vanishes.
I am guessing that women still spend a lot more time on their physical appearance, but that isn’t really the point. You’re getting mired in the details and missing the bigger picture, which GWTF alluded to.
Emily, the original says
GoWiththeFlow,
As a society and as individuals, we seem to have deep conflicts within as to the role of female beauty in life and society. How much accentuating of beauty is acceptable?
Yes. Do too much accentuating and it draws the ire of other women and the attention of men. But what does that attention mean? It’s based on something quite shallow. Do too little accentuating and you have no sexual currency. We are as conflicted about beauty as were are about sex.
At the end of the day, what remains is that as far as gaining men’s sexual/romantic interest, a woman accentuating her beauty is an effective strategy.
Yes, and it’s all about what’s effective, right? 🙂 IT!’S NOT ABOUT WHO’S RIGHT!
GoWiththeFlow says
Shaukat,
“However, my other point, which you and GWTF seem to not want to grapple with at all, is that if you include the time that men have to invest in their appearance and physique in order to attract the women who meet their looks threshold, then the alleged discrepancy between the preparation time men and women go through as part of the mating game vanishes.”
It does not. Overall women spend more money and time on their appearance than men do.
Just the time factor, from 2014:
Hours per week spent on appearance. Tee
Teen Girls 7.7 hours/week
Teen Boys 4 hours/week
Adult Women 6.4 hours/week
Adult men 4.5 hours per week
The survey also showed that women worry about their appliance more than men and have negative thought about their appearance more than men do.
http://www.today.com/health/stop-obsessing-women-spend-2-weeks-year-their-appearance-today-2D12104866
And on how women spend more money on appearance related items than men:
http://www.businessinsider.com/women-vs-men-guess-who-spends-more-2011-11
And a short article on why this is: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201612/why-women-spend-so-much-effort-their-appearance
Chance says
GWTF and Emily – haven’t read the whole thread so my apologies up front if this has already been addressed, but it’s myopic (and convenient) for women to focus on how much time/effort/money each sex generally spends on their appearance because appearance is more heavily weighted towards determining overall attractiveness in women than it is for men. So, naturally, women would likely spend more sweat and resources than men towards enhancing their appearance. However, this ignores the areas where men likely spend more sweat and resources than women towards becoming more attractive to the opposite sex. Examples could include building confidence and financial success in addition to appearance (The second example is a big one, and I have feeling that GWTF’s go-to response will be to point out that more women attend college than men these days…. just remember: what you study in college is infinitely more important than simply going to college).
There is just simply no way of knowing how much time/money/effort each sex spends – on average – towards making themselves more attractive to the opposite sex. One thing is for sure, however, is that both sexes spend a lot of sweat and resources to become more attractive to the opposite sex. This is why it is silly to attempt to justify the custom of men paying for women simply because women – on average – are likely to spend more sweat and resources on appearance alone than men.
Also, women are obviously of varying degrees of physical attractiveness (often correlated to how much sweat and resources were spent on ensuring that they are physically attractive). Likewise, men have obviously experienced varying degrees of financial success (again, often correlated to how much sweat and resources were spent to ensure financial success). So, where does that leave us, then? Should more homely or homey women be expected to pay their own way since they presumably don’t spend as much sweat and resources on their physical appearance? Should less successful men actually be expected to pay for the woman, while more successful men should be relieved of this expectation because they presumably spent more sweat and resources to become successful? It’s idiotic.
Emily, the original says
Chance,
AGAIN, for the 100th, time, this isn’t about who spends more time/money on their appearance or who puts in more time/money developing “other resources.” It’s about what is EFFECTIVE. It’s effective for a woman to put in a pretty big effort in her appearance. No one saying men don’t spend time on their appearance as well. It’s effective for the man to plan and pay for a date. Neither action is required. Neither action cancels the other out in terms of resources allocated/time spent. Nobody is entitled to anything. Everyone is trying to be as attractive to the opposite sex as possible. You can cherry pick what strategies you personally use. It’s all up to you.
As GWTF put it:
What I’m interested in exploring is how women spending time and money trying to make themselves as physically attractive as possible to men is a similar experience to how men ask for, plan for, and pay for dates. Both are effective strategies.
And I’m sure the 30 minutes you spend on your hair every morning mean one thing: YOU LOOK MARVELOUS! 🙂
GoWiththeFlow says
Chance,
“What I’m interested in exploring is how women spending time and money trying to make themselves as physically attractive as possible to men is a similar experience to how men ask for, plan for, and pay for dates. Both are effective strategies. Both men and women, at times, may truly get pleasure out of doing it. Both men and women may sometimes resent “having” to do it. Both men and women at times wish that society and the opposite sex would change so that it’s not an effective strategy. Both get bashed if they publicly say ‘this sucks.'”
This is what Emily and I are pointing out.
Shaukat’s contention is that men spend just as much effort as women do on their physical appearance to attract women
“. . . my other point, which you and GWTF seem to not want to grapple with at all, is that if you include the time that men have to invest in their appearance and physique in order to attract the women who meet their looks threshold, then the alleged discrepancy between the preparation time men and women go through as part of the mating game vanishes.”
This is demonstrably not true. As a group women spend more time and money on appearance than men do. This is behavior that is deeply ingrained in humankind, whether due to social construct or an evolutionary survival tactic or both.
Chance, you said: “This is why it is silly to attempt to justify the custom of men paying for women simply because women — on average — are likely to spend more sweat and resources on appearance alone than men.”
Emily and I have repeatedly stated in the comments on this post that women spending more time and money on their appearance DOES NOT entitle them to paid dates. But it seems that some of the men commenters want to keep bringing this up, and are dismissing the fact that women put more time and effort into their appearance to “win” the women-aren’t-entitled-to-paid-dates argument that Emily and I (and the majority of the women commenters) have already agreed with you on.
Chance, you said: “However, this ignores the areas where men likely spend more sweat and resources than women towards becoming more attractive to the opposite sex. Examples could include building confidence and financial success in addition to appearance”
Emily and I were pointing out that women investing in their appearance is an effective mate attracting strategy and that men don’t often realize the extent to which we do this. Of course men have their strategies as well. We never said they didn’t or that they did not spend considerable amount of time and energy enacting their strategies.
As far as going to college, that you mentioned as a specific strategy, is getting women the top reason men do this, or do they do it for themselves? Because they like the study area, and want to be financially independent to please themselves.
KK says
LOL
KK says
My LOL was @ the lack of reading comprehension. “Chance, ONCE AGAIN for the 100th time……”
Jeez!
Chance says
Emily: “AGAIN, for the 100th, time, this isn’t about who spends more time/money on their appearance or who puts in more time/money developing “other resources.” It’s about what is EFFECTIVE.”
I got that part. I just think it’s disingenuous to hide behind the “you should only do it because it’s effective” reasoning. Also, when a woman’s first reflexive response to a man who points out how it is unfair for men to be expected to pay is to simply note that she has to spend more money on her appearance, she is strongly implying that she is justified in her expectation of his payment regardless of how much she subsequently back-tracks by saying that neither party is entitled to anything.
Just because something is effective doesn’t mean it’s remotely fair. It’s one thing to spend time/money/energy to improve aspects of yourself that the opposite sex values in a partner, and I believe that both sexes do this to an equal extent, but with a different focus. However, it’s entirely different to expect the opposite sex to adhere to a specific set of rules or behaviors during the dating process in order to qualify for your intimacy. This is why I don’t think GWTF’s comparison is particularly valid (men calling, planning, paying and women spending time and money on appearance). Men also rarely get pleasure out of paying, but rather, they just pretend to like it in order to impress women.
A more appropriate comparison would be if the vast majority of men had a rule that women should give them a blowjob after the second date, with no expectation of sexual reciprocation, in an expression of her gratitude for his display of decisiveness and generosity when he was calling/planning/paying. Men want to verify sexual availability and generosity in a romantic prospect in the same way that women want to verify a masculine dominance and generosity in a man. I can’t think of a better way for a woman to demonstrate sexual availability and generosity, and it certainly would be EFFECTIVE. However, it wouldn’t even be remotely fair for men to have a rule that women behave that way.
GWTF, please see comments above addressed to Emily, but as it relates to this question: “As far as going to college, that you mentioned as a specific strategy, is getting women the top reason men do this, or do they do it for themselves? Because they like the study area, and want to be financially independent to please themselves.”
It’s a little of both. I would say that men are much less likely than women to study an area they are passionate about if studying such a field cannot result in a financially lucrative career because they know that no woman would want them. As men get older, their work-based decisions are increasingly dictated by the drive to attract (and, sadly, retain – i.e., serve) women. This is why men are more willing than women to work long hours or odd hours, travel for work, work in dangerous conditions, or work in an otherwise soul-sucking environment. It’s because they understand, on some level, that their money is expected by most women.
Emily, the original says
Chance,
A more appropriate comparison would be if the vast majority of men had a rule that women should give them a blowjob after the second date, with no expectation of sexual reciprocation, in an expression of her gratitude for his display of decisiveness and generosity when he was calling/planning/paying.
I’m thinking that you may want to try to become famous. Then you wouldn’t need to bring anything to the table to attract women. You wouldn’t have to do anything. The women would be lined up. (I mean this in all seriousness.)
Chance says
I can agree with this, although it is nice that these comment sections don’t look like IMDB message boards (when they existed), which became pretty much useless. I just couldn’t believe the coke bit actually got through given EMK’s policy on personal attacks.
Shaukat says
GWTF,
Thanks for the articles. The survey you linked to found that adult women exceed the amount of time men spend on their appearance weekly by less than 2hours. This is not much at all, and the survey reported a margin of error -+2% at the 95% confidence level. Moreover, the questions asked weren’t provided; I don’t know if ‘working/thinking about your appearance’ includes time spent at the gym or not.
I understood the first time that you and Emily were simply looking at effective strategies in dating when you brought this up, and that you weren’t necessarily saying that time spent on appearance cancels out money spent on a date. What I’m struggling to understand is why even bring it up then, especially when your own evidence shows that the difference in time spent on appearance by men and women is slight, and perhaps non-existent. To take a hypothetical, if we were discussing the amount of time women spend on their appearance as a dating strategy, suppose I then brought up the fact that men allegedly plan and pay for the first date as a counter-strategy. If, in fact, it turned out that women also plan and pay at roughly the same frequency as men, then the premise of the initial comparison is demolished.
KK says
Shaukat,
You said, “What I’m struggling to understand is why even bring it up then, especially when your own evidence shows that the difference in time spent on appearance by men and women is slight, and perhaps non-existent”.
Only one commenter brought it up.
Stacy2 said, “So, yes, when I put that much effort into the presentation, I expect a guy to pick up the freaking $50 wine bar tab”.
Other female commenters disagreed with her statement. It was only when male commenters said that women didn’t spend that much time or money on appearance, that other female commenters chimed in. As an aside to your comment quoted here, I will again reiterate that women do in fact spend more time and money on appearance. I don’t see how anyone could seriously deny that. Just ask your married friends which of them takes longer to get ready. Ask how much his wife spends on hair products, make up, and skin care.
Stacy2 bringing up something unrelated to the original article is no different than Chance’s unrelated comments about transactional relationships. But once it’s brought up, it seems fair game to discuss it.
Chance says
Shaukat, I know you don’t need the help, but I believe it was Emily that first brought up the fact that women spend more time and money on their appearance so the claim that only one commenter brought it up is inaccurate. Also, the claim that I brought up the supposedly unrelated topic of transactional relationships is also inaccurate because I was responding to Stacy2’s points about being compensated for the time and effort she puts into herself in preparation for a date.
KK says
Chance said, “Shaukat, I know you don’t need the help, but I believe it was Emily that first brought up the fact that women spend more time and money on their appearance so the claim that only one commenter brought it up is inaccurate”.
The comment I made about only one commenter was in relation to Stacy2 conflating time and money on her appearance with being treated to dates. She was the only commenter to say that. Jeez! It’s not difficult to understand that, is it? A separate conversation took place about time and money on appearance which had absolutely nothing to do with who pays on dates. It was completely unrelated! Got it yet???
“Also, the claim that I brought up the supposedly unrelated topic of transactional relationships is also inaccurate because I was responding to Stacy2’s points about being compensated for the time and effort she puts into herself in preparation for a date”.
It is unrelated to the rest of us here. You & Stacy2 both agree that all relationships are transactional. No one else has made that claim, which probably explains the fact you both have chips on your shoulders the size of Texas.
Stacy2 says
I don’t know how you guys manage to do any serious dating with all this activity here. Perhaps, rather than discussing what’s “fair” till everybody’s green in the face you should practice some unfairness in out in real life (personally i just came back from a spa weekend trip with my beau.
I will stand by my original comment (with a clarification that it does not apply on the individual level but as a general philosophy). I always bring my A-game to every date. I expect that a man does to0. I work hard on trying to impress him. I expect him to work hard on impressing me back. I am not interested in dating men who don’t care to impress me. These are men who only want to get laid on the cheap. Obviously I am not “entitled” to anything – but neither is he. So if we are looking to get somewhere together, both have to work on it. And, as women, we have to put up with a lot more unfairness in life and dating in general, so paying for first dates kinda pales in comparison (especially when you consider that the ultimate upside is greater for the guy). So if as a white male in the US you’re whining about “unfairness” of dating or life in general – you need to seriously check yourself.
Chance says
I know, whatever benefits that women receive pale in comparison to that nebulous patriarchy. White males are privileged because… well, they just are and that’s just the way it is. No need for proof or actual evidence.
Women’s greatest strength is their facade of weakness. Men’s greatest weakness is their facade of strength.
At any rate, I’m not blaming women for monetizing their sexuality. I actually blame men for willfully engaging in this much more insidious form of prostitution (since, let’s be honest, this financial provisioning often goes far beyond just paying for the first few dates). I just call BS on women’s justifications. Just be honest about what you’re doing…. at least street walkers have that common decency.
Stacy2 says
White males are privileged because… well, they just are and that’s just the way it is.
Yes. They are. Google is your friend with respect to evidence.
I actually blame men for willfully engaging in this
Willfully engaging? No-no. Men have created this setup in the first place, so you should take more credit than simply “willfully engaging”. Women are creating the product that men desire, but they expect the men to pay. Unfair? Cry me a river. Or, better yet, change your own priorities. Instead of longing for beautiful and objectifying women based on their looks, start prioritizing smart, educated, accomplished with good values, etc. When men as a gender begin consistently doing that, you can rest assured that female behavior and expectations will change accordingly. Don’t preach to women. Preach to your bros out there who all chase the hot chick. Women in general are not dumb and will not go for this “unfairness” argument. We know what really is unfair (and thats not you paying for dates…)
P.S. What cracked me up was the comment above how men going to college is investing into their SMV. I suppose the commenter didn’t realize that women now outnumber men in colleges (as well as some grad schools)
Chance says
Stacy2,
“Yes. They are. Google is your friend with respect to evidence.”
I don’t have the inclination. You’re the one who made the claim so it’s up to you to provide evidence to back it up. Tell your sisters to step up their game if you don’t like women’s lot in life.
“Willfully engaging? No-no. Men have created this setup in the first place, so you should take more credit than simply “willfully engaging”.”
Western civilization is dependent on men producing more than they consume so women can consume more than they produce. Women achieve this through the maximization of the price of their sexuality. I’m not complaining as I think the strategy seems to have been very effective for women for several generations, and I just simply avoid the arrangement.
“P.S. What cracked me up was the comment above how men going to college is investing into their SMV. I suppose the commenter didn’t realize that women now outnumber men in colleges (as well as some grad schools)”
Not when it comes to the more useful and lucrative fields of study (often correlated with being more difficult). I already addressed this in my response to Emily and GWTF.
Stacy2 says
You’re the one who made the claim so it’s up to you to provide evidence to back it up.
No, not really. White male privilege should be so blatantly obvious to any unbiased observer that asking me to produce “evidence” of it is ludicrous. “Having eyes do you not see? Having ears do you not hear?”. Not my problem to educate you.
I’m not complaining as I think the strategy seems to have been very effective for women for several generations
The primary beneficiaries of this “strategy” have been men. Men, who for hundreds of years treated women as property, something to be “given away” at a wedding, something to be “taken”, an under-human who were to have no separate identity and no separate rights. So no, it wasn’t the women who designed this arrangement, and it wasn’t the women who benefited from it. You making this statement is akin to saying that slaves benefited from slavery for generations because they were “provisioned” for by their masters. It is ludicrous, offensive, and has no basis in truth.
Not when it comes to the more useful and lucrative fields of study (often correlated with being more difficult)
Yes. Yes it is. Perhaps you have to recheck your facts. Women outnumber men in med schools (which is as difficult as it gets). Women to men ration in law schools has been roughly 50-50 for over 30 years now. So yes, women have stepped up in big numbers and generally have beaten the crap out of men in every fields that they’ve gone to. But – you want to see the example of “patriarchy”? The men to women ratio in senior positions across the board has been equalizing much more slowly. Why? I’ll tell you – because the system continues to be rigged against women. One aspect of it is the male-dominated culture that dictates that in order to succeed one has to have no other loyalties but to one’s job. Effectively, women are pressured to make a choice – have kids/family or advance your career. Men are not pressured to make this choice. They’re not the ones enduring any downtime associated with procreation. This, of course, will change in the next 2 generations because the younger crowd doesn’t stand for this B/S. But we’re not there yet and until we are yes, patriarchy. There’s that.
KK says
Chance said,
“I’m not complaining as I think the strategy seems to have been very effective for women for several generations, and I just simply avoid the arrangement”.
Out of all the disingenuous comments you’ve made here, this one takes the cake! You have made the personal claim here more than once that you are here to fight back against women. You use this space to complain and insult women constantly. What a joke!
Shaukat says
I don’t know how you guys manage to do any serious dating with all this activity here.
Katie already responded to this, but I’d simply point out that it’s rather ironic that you wrote that and then proceeded to make at least five comments on two different threads.
Regarding your other points, I’m not sure if you really are such a proponent of social justice as you claim to be, since on other threads you’ve supported Trump and his immigration policies. But let’s assume you’re being sincere. It’s still completely irrelevant to the topic of dating, which is why I ignored your earlier points, 2-5.
Let’s offer this analogy: suppose someone were to say, “hey, men work the most dangerous occupations, they suffer from depression and commit suicide at higher rates, they get injured on the job more, hence, women should pay more on dates.” Before you say men created the system, I’ll remind you that working class men did not. To be fair, this is an area where I would likely also have some disagreements with Chance, because in my opinion to say ‘women benefit’ from some system, or ‘men benefit’ from some system without also looking at one’s economic/class position is a mistake.
However, to take this analogy further, suppose an African American man, who earns a decent salary and comes from a well-to-do family, were to say, “because of the discrimination we’ve faced in the past and due to the problems many of us still face, I think the white girl I’m dating should foot the bill for everything.’ Would you agree with that? Yet, that’s where your reasoning leads.
@kk
I was mainly responding to Emily and GWTF. Regardless of Emily’s intentions, the fact that she brought up this topic in the context of what was being discussed, implied that the time women spend on their appearance was some kind of quid pro quo.
@Jeremy,
I agree that confirmation bias is a real thing, but I disagree that this always has to be a factor, even if some bias always enters into science. I’ve changed my own position on several issues over the years due to the scientific principal of falsifiability.
GoWiththeFlow says
Chance,
“Not when it comes to the more useful and lucrative fields of study (often correlated with being more difficult).”
You are equating career/field of study usefulness with lucrativeness. The predominantly female study majors and career fields of education, nursing, and social work don’t pay well on a time spent in study and training vs. hourly pay rate, but I would hardly call them “useless”. If every teacher, nurse, and social worker stayed home all next week, that would definitely demonstrate how useful they are.
As far as level of difficulty, there’s nothing easy about having to remove a child from parents who live in a drug stupor, try to teach kids who have parents who will scream at you if you give their poor baby a failing grade, or take care of patients with evolving heart attacks.
As for the gender distribution of dangerous jobs, the highest level of job related injuries are in the nursing field. Back injuries specifically. They also are exposed to infectious agents like Hep B and HIV.
Chance says
GWTF,
No one said those fields were useless… that’s binary thinking. However, while it may sound harsh, compensation is a reflection of someone’s utility in the workforce. That’s an unavoidable fact. The labor market is like pretty much every other mart of competitive commerce where the cost of a product/service is based on perceived utility (except in cases where there’s gross self-dealing and things of that nature). While it would be disruptive if all teachers, nurses, or social workers quit on the spot, the are more easily replaceable than physicians or electrical engineers, and that is why they cost what they cost.
As it relates to difficulty, I was referring to the difficulty of the path to get to a particular profession, not the difficulty of a typical day on the job. I will freely admit that a server or roofer’s day on the job is much harder than my typical day, but the path to get to practice my profession is exponentially more difficult than the path to become a server or roofer.
Finally, I acknowledge that nurses can often get injured on the job, but that’s just one tiny slice of the picture you are choosing to present. I haven’t seen data that shows whether men or women get injured more on the job by type and severity of injury. However, you and I know full well that men are much more likely to work on a job that requires them to risk their lives, which was what I was getting at in the first place. This is evidenced by the fact that men accounted for 93% of workplace fatalities in 2015 according to the BLS (and I’m not sure if that would even count the undocumented workers who are killed on the job as Latin American males have an inordinately high workplace mortality rate).
Chance says
Are these your alternative facts, Stacy2? It must be nice to think that you can just make s*** up. Here’s what I found as it relates to medical school graduates:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/medical-school-graduates-by-gender/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
https://www.aamc.org/download/321532/data/factstableb2-2.pdf
There may be something wrong with my eyes, but it sure appears that more men than women are graduating from medical school. I didn’t bother to look up law school graduates since most lawyers don’t make squat because the legal field is over-saturated with lawyers produced by lawyer mills. Here are some points of reference that you probably need to peruse:
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/28/359419934/who-studies-what-men-women-and-college-majors
https://web.archive.org/web/20170924063639/http://www.aei.org/publication/highest-paying-college-majors-gender-composition-of-students-earning-degrees-in-those-fields-and-the-gender-pay-gap/
http://www.randalolson.com/2015/08/16/u-s-college-majors-median-yearly-earnings-vs-gender-ratio/
http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2009/12/do-men-or-women-choose-majors-to-maximize-income
Stacy2, tell your sisters to step up their game. Don’t wish things were easier for women. Wish women were better. Don’t like that women are affected by “having” to stay home to raise a child (a dubious claim in this day-and-age)? Then be open to the idea of a stay-at-home husband in the same way that men are open to the idea of stay-at-home wives. Problem solved.
“No, not really. White male privilege should be so blatantly obvious to any unbiased observer that asking me to produce “evidence” of it is ludicrous.”
That’s because you can’t come up with evidence. We’re still at square one.
KK says
Chance said, “That’s because you can’t come up with evidence. We’re still at square one”.
I’d like to hear evidence as well, Stacy2. You see, unlike Chance who paints an entire gender as bad, I actually rely on facts to inform my opinions, and I actually like men. Please explain what special protections white males have under the law. I know people who are completely shitty employees who will never be fired because they know they can play the race card or the gender card. I know teachers who are not allowed to do their jobs because when they discipline a student, that just happens to be a minority, the parents will turn it into a race issue when it isn’t one.
Jeremy says
Oy. This conversation is making my head hurt. Guys, do you not realize that we humans believe what we want to believe and then search for corroborating evidence? That whatever world-view we wish to espouse, we can find data that will back it up?
It matters not at all whether the world is more unfair to men or women, as long as members of both genders are willing to fight unfairness equally when they find it (and are willing to recognize it where it exists). Recognize that there are areas where women are disadvantaged and be willing to offer help, or at least understanding. Recognize that there are areas where men are disadvantaged and be willing to offer help, or at least understanding.
But the pissing game of who has it worse is childish, and ultimately fruitless.
Chance says
Jeremy, agree, but in this instance, there is very little evidence to support Stacy2’s claims and some overwhelming evidence that contradict her claims. There’s a difference between me and her here: she’s not providing any evidence and I am.
Jeremy says
But here’s the thing, Chance – there is evidence out there to back BOTH of your claims, whether presented here or not. That’s why the notion of providing evidence to support a world-view is nonsensical. You might find evidence that you believe corroborates your view, and so might Stacy. But although the statistics that both of you present may be accurate, neither is proof that the story you are creating out of those facts is the whole picture.
In the book “The Black Swan”, the author describes Umberto Ecco’s library – a huge library full of many more books than any human could ever read. And any time a visitor came to Ecco’s house, they asked whether he had read all of those books. His answer was that of course he hadn’t, and that was the point. The library’s presence served to remind him of the vast quantity of knowledge out there that he was unaware of – had never read. Its point was to humble him before venturing an opinion, that in spite of all he felt he knew, there was plenty that he didn’t know.
This doesn’t mean that we can’t have beliefs and opinions. But it means that we should be gentle with them, because we may be wrong – we may not have all the information. Because even when we have some data to support the stories we tell ourselves, we don’t know how much we don’t know about what might contradict those stories.
Stacy2 says
Chance:
there is very little evidence to support Stacy2’s claims
You have just assembled this evidence yourself. You just refusing to see what’s in front of you. According to your very links, men and women graduate from medical school in roughly equal numbers. Same goes for law schools This has been the case for decades. Yet… yet… how come women are just 15% of department chairs in hospitals? How come the ratio of male to female partners in law firms is 5:1, while at the entry level it is 50/50? This, chance, IS EXACTLY the evidence of systemic male privilege. What it is actually showing that less qualified men are being promoted ahead of more qualified women (if we rationally assume they were equally qualified at the start). Ponder on that. Women ARE better. Already are. And it is only matter of time until this male dominated culture is watered down enough to overcome the discrepancy.
And, btw, literally the only major where men outnumber women by a significant margin is computer science (per your own link). They are dead even in business, math and science and healthcare. And I can tell you that a business grad or a doctor will blow an average programmer out of the water in terms of earnings power. I should know because I have 2 masters degrees in these fields.
Don’t like that women are affected by “having” to stay home to raise a child (a dubious claim in this day-and-age)? Then be open to the idea of a stay-at-home husband in the same way that men are open to the idea of stay-at-home wives.
Yes, i am very unhappy about having to be pregnant and having lower productivity and downtime associated with it. The day a man conceives and carries a child, i will be behind the concept of SAHD. Until then, i chose to not have children unless me and their father can afford round the clock childcare to minimize the blow. Here. An alternative solution.
@KK:
Please explain what special protections white males have under the law.
Please explain where did I say they have any special protections under the law? I didn’t. “Privilege” is not about individual advantages or protection under the law. It is about the persistent, often subconscious biases against certain groups, specifically minorities and women, it’s about the culture that is male-centric and leads to the exclusion of women, it’s about outright harassment, etc. Something you’d be able to see with your own eyes if you actually attempted to work in corporate america.
KK says
Stacy2,
I worked in corporate America before I had children and I do now, as well. I’m not seeing what you claim to see.
Outside of one individual, I’ve never been treated poorly for being a woman. I’m referring to sexual harassment, by the way. I’ve had male co-workers flirt with me and the worst I can say about that is that I found it annoying. Sexual harassment came from someone in upper management. I hold him individually responsible for his own actions; not all mankind.
Other than that, I’ve never been treated differently for being a woman. About 6 months ago, a middle management position became available when one of the managers decided to move out of state to work at our Nashville office. A co-worker thought she was a shoe in for that position because of her seniority. When a male co-worker was chosen instead, she was very upset and made the kinds of claims you’re making. I later learned the reason she wasn’t chosen is because on the occasions when she had been brought in to sit in on meetings with middle and upper management (because they were hoping to groom her for a higher position), and she had been instructed only to let them know her thoughts and opinions on particular issues, she bulldozed over everyone with ideas that she was never asked about. It was decided that she wouldn’t be a good fit. Now, to hear her tell it, she was only overlooked because she’s a female.
I’m not saying that there isn’t any truth to some of your claims. I just don’t perceive it as all encompassing as you do. The average, white male doesn’t have it any easier than anyone else.
On occasion, when someone is rude to me, whether it’s at a department store or a restaurant, or the post office, I don’t assume it’s because that person hates 40+ year old white women. I figure they’re either a jerk or maybe they’re having a bad day and move on. However, I do know people who think that any perceived slight, no matter how small, is because of their race, gender, class, etc.
Stacy2 says
@KK
With all due respect you really don’t even understand what I am talking about. Nobody was “rude” to you? What a hoot. Yeah sure they will smile in your face and stab you in the back. That is a given. And you really don’t see the worst of it until you begin to get to the positions with real money. To build on your example:
she had been instructed only to let them know her thoughts and opinions on particular issues, she bulldozed over everyone with ideas that she was never asked about.
So think about it for a second.. If it was a man in her place he’d be dubbed a “go getter”, “showing initiative” and all sorts of things. But as a woman? “Aggressive” and “not a fit”. That is exactly what i am talking about. Nuanced, hidden, hard to prove and root out biases, that we as women have to tread. Like literally, the same behavior that is considered desirable in a man is a disqualifier for a woman. There’re studies on that, if you’re interested (but I doubt that you are).
KK says
Stacy2,
“So think about it for a second.. If it was a man in her place he’d be dubbed a “go getter”, “showing initiative” and all sorts of things”.
You don’t know that. You literally make shit up to justify your own inferiority.
“Yeah sure they will smile in your face and stab you in the back. That is a given”.
Is it now? Please educate me more, oh wise one. If someone chooses to stab me in the back, I will deal with it when it happens. I refuse to go around believing everyone is out to get me. I’m sure there are some self-help articles on this as well, if you’re interested (but I doubt that you are).
“And you really don’t see the worst of it until you begin to get to the positions with real money”.
Well, of course. You’re superior in every way except, of course, when you’d prefer to play the victim. Must be a real mind f###.
Stacy2 says
@KK
You don’t know that. You literally make shit up to justify your own inferiority.
I don’t know that and neither do you. But you didn’t really expect them to come out and say “we did not promote her because she was a woman”. The fact is, there will always be an explanation provided for you why you weren’t “good enough”. Too aggressive. Or not assertive enough. Or whatever. And half the time the decision makers will actually believe that. Nobody is self aware enough to say “having a woman in this position makes me deeply uncomfortable because of my life-long biases” and almost no one is dumb enough to come out and say “i discriminate against women”.
And yes, at the lower level it is not visible as much. Because women doings simpler, support tasks are not offensive to the ingrained social construct that wants to see them as mothering-supportive-consensus-building figures, not take charge leaders. Now that is a no-no.
Read up, liquidate your ignorance..
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathycaprino/2015/08/25/gender-bias-is-real-womens-perceived-competency-drops-significantly-when-judged-as-being-forceful/#15148e712d85
And no, i don’t play victim. Pointing out the issues is not playing the victim. I sat at the table long before Sharyl Sandberg told women to do so. Two promotions in one year, only one ladder up left, which is why nobody can accuse me of playing the gender card. But yeah do tell me all about it. LOL
KK says
Stacy2,
So then, please explain how you’ve come to your conclusions. You’ve said you weren’t born here. You’ve said you come from a poor family. You’ve said you obtained two master’s degrees from an Ivy league school. So, please explain to me how an immigrant who had access to all kinds of scholarships has been mistreated by “the patriarchy”. Please explain to me how as a black woman, affirmative action has not ensured you will never have to worry about not being considered for a job. Please explain how someone who is living in the most expensive city in the country making over $500k a year has been marginalized in any way. Who are these (white) boogiemen trying to keep you down? Your statements about victimhood and not being a victim completely contradict one another.
If I were you, I wouldn’t be harping about how unfair you have it. I’d be thankful that I live in a country where you have every opportunity available to become successful. Why not focus on the positive? You could literally be an inspiration to young, underprivileged girls if you chose to go talk to them about how you achieved financial success. Or, I guess you could bitch about the patriarchy. Oh well…
Stacy2 says
@KK:
Since you’re keeping such a good record, please make a note that i did not have access to any scholarships. I paid for my education and only recently paid off my loans. Yes, they were big.
You continue to fail to grasp the concept of what i am talking about. Let’s use another example. Just because Obama was elected president, doesn’t mean that hundreds of african americans are not being marginalized on a daily basis. Affirmative action guarantees you a job? What a hoot. There’s not a single black person on my floor. Not one. I mean, literally. Just because some individuals manage to rise above their circumstance, doesn’t mean that the issues of “patriarchy” or marginalization don’t exist. I am sorry that you can’t get it through your head. It doesn’t seem to be a complicated concept.
If I were you, I wouldn’t be harping about how unfair you have it. I’d be thankful that I live in a country where you have every opportunity available to become successful.
This is not an either or proposition. I can be grateful for all the positives and still point out all the negatives. Progress is not made by those who are satisfied with the status quo.
KK says
Stacy2,
I’ve already said that there is some truth to what you’ve said. I also said I don’t think it’s as bad as you think it is. A perfect example is the situation I told you about where a female employee was not given a promotion. You immediately went to her defense. Why? Do you really believe that ANY TIME a female or a minority is passed over that there’s some insidious plot to keep them down? Is it possible that they may have actually been less qualified? I guess I just prefer to look at these issues on a case by case basis with an open mind.
You said, “Progress is not made by those who are satisfied with the status quo”.
Nor is it made by those who have a one track mind. To make progress, you have to be willing to look at the entire picture without bias and come up with solutions that are helpful for everyone; Not just specific groups of people.
Katie says
To make progress, you have to be willing to look at the entire picture without bias and come up with solutions that are helpful for everyone; Not just specific groups of people.
Actually history doesn’t suggest this. It would be nice if it did, but the major facilitators of change have, on average, had pretty one track goals. The way I see it, invoking change is very energy consuming and to actually be successful it helps to have be very one-track goalwise.
Now one-trackness I’m referring to says nothing of whether the change is positive or not.
Rosa Parks comes to mind as in invoker of positive change.
Hitler comes to mind as an invoker of negative change.
And btw. I’m NOT comparing anyone here to either. It’s just that your comment KK, made me think. I agreed with you at first, until I thought about it a bit.
KK says
Hi Katie,
I think it all depends on the issue. For example, when women couldn’t vote, the solution was to allow women the right to vote. Simple. Women weren’t given superior voting rights and men’s voting rights weren’t taken away or diminished. Problem solved. Everybody wins.
But what about issues that aren’t so cut and dry? Just one example: lower female college enrollment in STEM majors. When my kids were in junior high, there was a special assembly hosted at their school with female guest speakers that had careers in STEM. Sounds good, right? Except it was only for the girls. My question is why? Why do we need to exclude boys to advance girls? Why can’t it be all inclusive? The assumption that boys naturally gravitate towards those careers and the ones who don’t, just aren’t interested is false. I’m sure there are lots of boys who may not have considered a career in STEM who may become interested if given the same information.
Katie says
But what about issues that aren’t so cut and dry?
You’re example was not “cut and dry” at the time it was an issue. It only appears so now. When major societal changes stick, the next generation always looks back in astonishment at the last generations social blindness.
Case in point – Slavery. It’s absurd and horrendous to consider enslaving an ethnic group based on skin color today. But that wasn’t the case at the time. A war was catalyzed by the debate at the time.
On another note, I fail to see how your STEM example is an example of anything at all. Please be clearer about how this particular workshop is an example of successful change on a non “cut and dry” scale. I’m dense.
Stacy2 says
My question is why? Why do we need to exclude boys to advance girls?
This is a good question, except nothing of this sort is happening. Things like that are needed to counteract currently toxic perceptions that an engineer is a dude wearing flip flops, untucked pleated shirt and yesterday’s pizza crumbs in his beard. Seriously. The concept that you need to be of a certain mold to be in that field needs to just die, because it definitely can prevent girls from entering it, if they see it as socially weird.
Google Isis Wenger – a good looking girl who was an engineer and was featured in her company’s ad campaign, and how everybody assumed she was a hired actress or something (she created hashtag ilooklikeanengineer).
That perception is a real problem. If you’re a woman the society wants you to shake your ass and boobs and that’s ok, but use your brain – nope, not ok. That’s weird and suspect. As women, we have this image problem and it’s real. For example – i was recently entertaining female executives. We were at a business restaurant where the walls were covered with photographic images of women striking exaggeratedly sexy poses (use your imagination). I couldn’t shake off the irony of that. Here we are, a group of accomplished women, running listed companies and what not, and yet the perception of our gender as expressed through art work is based on how good we can stick our tits out? And I have to look at that? How about some equalization there too then – lets see some 6-packed half naked male models. Or better yet, let’s see neither? (the technical term for this i believe is male gaze)
So, to sum up – the purpose of the panels like the one that you described is to break these damaging stereotypes and perceptions and show these girls positive role models in the field that they may almost feel is a taboo. Boys don’t have that issue, there’s nothing to remediate.
Jeremy says
@KK, it’s always complicated. For example, regarding the voting issue, the reason men were given the vote was because they were conscripted for war, so it was felt that they had a right to have a say in who sends them to war. When women demanded the vote, they did not demand to be conscripted, nor did they demand an end to male conscription. They wanted equal rights, not equal responsibilities. This is to say that issues are NEVER simple, and that there is always a broader picture that proponents for change usually ignore.
Katie is right – proponents for change are usually single-minded. Whether the change they advocate for is something we would consider “progress” depends on our own biases.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – what matters is not whether our world-view is “true.” What matters is why we choose to believe it. Someone who chooses to believe in micro-aggressions all around her/him has likely had negative experiences that the individual wants to blame on other things. Is that belief helpful and does it result, ultimately, in greater happiness for the individual? I can’t answer for others, but that is the question to consider, when evaluating our own beliefs.
Jeremy says
@Stacy2, you wrote, “boys don’t have this issue, so there’s nothing to remediate.”
Except that women outnumber men in just about every other profession, right? Except that there’s a sense that men can’t be teachers (especially for young kids), or nurses, or any caring profession? Except that now that women outnumber men in universities for medicine, dentistry, and law, there is no effort to find out why that might be or to get more young men into those fields, right?
Because when men have problems it’s because they suck and because women out-compete them naturally, not because there might be biases present in society that you don’t see, right?
KK says
“On another note, I fail to see how your STEM example is an example of anything at all. Please be clearer about how this particular workshop is an example of successful change on a non “cut and dry” scale. I’m dense”.
Okay, Katie, bear with me here…
Did you read Evan’s article on over correction? Let’s say you have a series of failed relationships that end badly and you try to figure out what went wrong. You decide the common denominator was an intense level of chemistry and this must be the problem. You’re right. However, instead of trying to date guys you feel a little less passionate about you make the mistake of overcorrecting by dating guys you feel no passion for. That doesn’t work either, does it? So, you eventually realize you need some passion but not so much that you’re blind to his flaws and eventually get it right.
I think this sort of overcorrection is what’s happening on a larger scale in society. Not enough girls or minorities going to college? Let’s make it easier. Let’s give out grants and scholarships. Let’s educate them on the importance of higher education. Let’s encourage and inspire. Great. Until it flip flops. Another overcorrection will take place focusing solely on boys (highly unlikely) and the cycle will continue or boys will start to be included on a larger scale and balance will be achieved.
There’s this assumption that males have it easier in every facet of life and it just isn’t true. Eh, he’s a guy. He’ll be fine. Not true. I don’t understand why if we TRULY believe that we’re all equal and all deserving of equal treatment and equal opportunities why this assumption exists. Stacy2 thinks white males are privileged. That’s not my perception. The only people who are privileged are the truly privileged; ie, very wealthy and powerful themselves or from very powerful, wealthy families. But the middle / upper middle classes? Nope. The only advantages they have are the ones they work for to create themselves.
KK says
Jeremy said, “Because when men have problems it’s because they suck and because women out-compete them naturally, not because there might be biases present in society that you don’t see, right?”
Thank you, Jeremy, for stating this in a way that I hadn’t thought of. This was one of the points I was trying to make.
Stacy2 says
@Jeremy:
There is no effort to find out why that might be or to get more young men into those fields, right?
I think this is a valid point and I think that absolutely there should be an effort to get more men into nursing and teaching – which are well paid middle class jobs that men should be transitioning to as traditionally “manly” occupations in manufacturing disappear. Yes we need positive images of male nurses and teachers in the media, and similar workshops for these occupations – badly. So far a male nurse for example only has been a subject of ridicule in movies/TV. I agree with that.
But having a girls only workshop for STEM does not in any way constitute advancing girls at the expense of boys.
And while we’re at it, let’s also acknowledge that a lot of what’s holding men back in those occupations is negative peer pressure.
@KK
The only advantages they have are the ones they work for to create themselves.
That is all wonderful, except it is much easier to create those advantages for yourself as a white guy. The second easiest would be as a white woman, and then the minorities. And this is how racial privilege works. This has nothing to do with socioeconomic class.
KK says
“But having a girls only workshop for STEM does not in any way constitute advancing girls at the expense of boys”.
Surprisingly (haha), I disagree with you and I could list all the reasons why, but I don’t think you’d seriously consider anything I have to say on the subject.
“And this is how racial privilege works. This has nothing to do with socioeconomic class”.
Stacy2, when I was in high school, one of my friends was the daughter of a well known judge. Being stupid teenagers, we had gone to a party, drank, and drove back to her house with an open container of alcohol sitting out in plain sight. A couple of blocks from her house, she rolled through a stop sign and we got pulled over. I knew we were getting ready to go to jail and my parents were going to kill me. The policeman asked for her license, asked if we’d been drinking, etc. He made her pour out the container of alcohol. After telling her what a great guy her dad was and how he knew he’d be really disappointed if he found out she was drinking underage and then driving, he gave us a stern speech and instructed us to go directly to her house and he let us go. No arrest, no ticket, not even a warning ticket.
WHO you are makes a difference. The more power, influence, and money you have makes a difference (regardless of race / gender).
Obama’s daughters will never have the same concerns as any kid (regardless of race / gender) from working class – upper middle class USA. Average white males do not have the advantages you think they do.
But to save you the effort of disagreeing yet again, let’s just agree to disagree on these topics.
Jeremy says
Stacy2, you wrote, “in no way does running a girls only STEM workshop help girls at the expense of boys.” – It does it that’s all you are doing. If you are choosing to only see the one profession where girls are lagging and not all the other professions where boys are lagging, you are by definition advancing girls at the expense of boys.
You wrote, “Let’s acknowledge that a lot of what’s holding men back in those professions is negative feedback and social pressure.” I agree 100% with that. How is that different from what is holding women back in engineering from lack of role models? It goes back to what I said before – whether or not these ideas affect us largely depends on whether we choose to believe in them. If we choose not to believe them, we can rise above them (as women have done in medicine, law, dentistry, accounting, the list goes on and on). Not to say that biases don’t exist in society – they do – but the more we ignore them the less basis they will have in reality. That’s how you fight a bias.
Chance says
Jeremy gets to the heart of why I’ve always thought that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote:
“When women demanded the vote, they did not demand to be conscripted, nor did they demand an end to male conscription. They wanted equal rights, not equal responsibilities.”
The only thing I would change here is the past-tense nature of the comment. I think that most women still have this mindset today as it relates to conscription.
Katie says
Jeremy gets to the heart of why I’ve always thought that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote…
@Chance
If you don’t feel this way actually, then you are a troll looking for a reaction.
If you actually do feel this way, you are a fossilized misogynist.
Jeremy says
Chance, the point was not to say that women shouldn’t vote – it is to say that if a desire for equal rights had gone alongside a desire for equal responsibilities, an end to male conscription should also have been demanded.
It’s not to say that women should not have no-fault divorce, but rather to say that they should have also demanded an end to alimony along with it. It is not to say that there shouldn’t be efforts to equalize women’s education and employment opportunities, but rather that when those opportunities swing in women’s favour that they should advocate for men.
The problem is not malevolence on the part of women. The problem is the narrative – the idea that society is patriarchal and swings in men’s favour. If that is the belief, women need not advocate for equal responsibility because any gain that women make only brings them part way toward the un-achievable goal of equality, while any concession they make sets them back.
The solution is not to advocate for an end to women’s rights. It is to add men’s problems to the narrative.
shaukat says
Chance and Jeremy, I disagree with you both on this issue.
@Jeremy,
I have not seen any evidence to suggest that historically the franchise was extended to men due to conscription. Voting was always predicated on the ownership of property. In he United States it was extended to non-property owning white men in order to diffuse potential rebellion. Blacks also served in the military and were not granted the same right at that time.
Chance, I think the fundamental mistake you are making is the assumption that democracy is a privilege that state elites are entitled to dole out at their discretion based on behavior, as opposed to an intrinsic right. I think it was Huxley who once said, ‘freedoms are taken, not given.’
Stacy2 says
Jeremy:
It’s not to say that women should not have no-fault divorce, but rather to say that they should have also demanded an end to alimony along with it.
I am sorry i must be dense, you do realize that alimony is gender blind, don’t you? In other words, men can (and do) get alimony if the wife is the primary bread winner?
I do think that alimony should be completely abolished. The idea that one adult should support another just because he/she had voluntarily been doing that for the past X years is moronic. But this isn’t a gender issue as the law is, and has always been, gender blind.
I agree with your point of equal responsibility. To that end I completely support the requirement for women to register with selective service and be drafted if needed. It is worth pointing out though that women have been fighting for the right to join the military, not trying to avoid it, and that the question of draft is basically moot at this point as we have professional military.
Jeremy says
@Stacy2 re: alimony – yes, the law is gender-blind, but although I could talk about how it really isn’t gender-blind at all in practical terms, that isn’t really the point. The point is in the assumptions made by the common narrative about what EQUALITY means.
If we believe that the gold standard is what men have traditionally had, then the goal of equality should be to bring women to the level of men. This would mean conscripting them for war, requiring them to pay alimony, and expecting them to be open to “dating down” financially as men have always done. But if the gold standard is not what men have traditionally had, but rather a combination of the benefits that both men AND women have traditionally had, then “equality” looks very different.
Instead of requiring women to pay alimony as men have done, we eliminate alimony completely as an archaic concept. No adult should unwillingly support another. Instead of conscripting both men and women, we conscript neither. And instead of focusing on STEM fields where women lag behind men, we focus on ALL fields where there is a significant gender difference to assist anyone who needs assistance.
That is how alimony is still a gendered issue, in spite of the gender-blindness of the law.
KK says
Jeremy,
You said, “Instead of requiring women to pay alimony as men have done, we eliminate alimony completely as an archaic concept”.
Here’s the problem with that. Stay at home moms. If a couple decides to have children and they both agree that it would be best for their family if the mom stays home to take care of their children, should she be penalized (for lack of a better word) in the event of a divorce? I don’t know the divorce laws in every single state. The divorce laws where I live put a cap on child support. So someone making $500k a year pays the exact same in child support as someone making $85k.
So, let’s say a man earns $200k a year. He has a wife who has stayed home with the kids for 10 years. He abandons his family. She files for divorce, gets primary custody of their two children, and is awarded less than $2,000 a month in child support until the youngest is 18. She has to figure out how she’s going to live on less than $24,000 a year after living on $200k a year. If she hasn’t worked in over 10 years, it doesn’t matter what she did before professionally or what degrees she had. She’s going to have to work full time and go back to school full time in order to support herself and her kids and still be a full time single parent. Otherwise, she’s going to be living in poverty with two kids. THAT’S archaic.
Temporary alimony (that’s all you get in my state) allows someone time (right now it’s 3 years. In rare cases 5 years, but never to exceed 5 years) to go back to school or get additional training in order to better support herself and her children.
Personally, I think no fault divorce is bad. I also think that temporary alimony should only be awarded on specific cases, similar to what I described.
Stacy2 says
@ Jeremy:
I completely agree with you on principle. I do disagree on the details re alimony. It doesn’t sound like you have any first hand experience with it, but i do. My ex sued me for alimony. A female friend of mine, who is a successful CPA and a mother of 3, was ordered to pay alimony to her ex (who was the father of her kids). Since she has custody the court has netted it against his share of child support, requiring him to pay next to nothing. It really is applied on a gender blind basis, but i totally agree that it has to be abolished.
@KK:
Here’s the problem with that. Stay at home moms. If a couple decides to have children and they both agree that it would be best for their family if the mom stays home to take care of their children
No, that is not a problem at all. If a grown woman decides to opt out of labor force to pack sandwiches for her kids and do yoga, it is her prerogative and she should do it at her own risk. She should decide whether she trusts her husband to do right by her. If that’s what the couple really desires to do, they can have maintenance written into a prenuptial agreement. There’s no need to set it in the law as a default for every unsuspecting adult who may be required to support their ex for nothing else than the fact that they happen to be making more.
Alimony originated from the time when men treated women as property. That need to be “maintained”. It should be gone, gone, gone, like yesterday.
Stacy2 says
@KK
She files for divorce, gets primary custody of their two children, and is awarded less than $2,000 a month in child support until the youngest is 18. She has to figure out how she’s going to live on less than $24,000 a year after living on $200k a year.
And why is this a given? If this woman can’t support herself, perhaps she should relinquish custody to her husband, who clearly can support himself and his kids, and figure out how to be an independent adult first. I find it really bemusing that the courts in the U.S. use the standard of “lifestyle she became accustomed to”. I find it to be grossly unfair to the money-making spouse. Marriage becomes leg irons.
Chance says
@Jeremy – “The solution is not to advocate for an end to women’s rights. It is to add men’s problems to the narrative.”
I understand. I can’t see how any reasonable person would disagree with that. I’ll explain my thoughts on conscription in another comment since it will be in response Shaukat’s comment as well, and I believe it will show that I hardly wish to “end women’s rights”.
I respect your viewpoints and enjoy reading your posts, but you’ve been talking at me over the past several days/weeks on this thread as if I don’t already understand the ideas that you’re presenting. I think you and I just differ in our outlooks, and as a result, our approaches are quite different. I get the impression that you believe that women simply aren’t understanding the concerns of men because these concerns haven’t been communicated effectively (i.e., the narrative is off). It’s my belief that they are completely aware of our concerns, but rather, most of them just don’t care. A looong time ago, I used to think the way I believe you currently think, but I don’t think this way anymore. This is why I don’t bother trying to reason with them most of the time….. I think they already understand.
I hope you’re right and that I’m wrong, but a good illustration of this on EMK’s blog is the post relating to the debate over whether a man should have to pay for a child that he didn’t want. The current legal setup is patently unfair and it’s clear as day… and there’s no way that women can’t understand this. Yet, look at the comments from most of them. You’ll see all kinds of odd justifications that don’t even begin to hold up to logical scrutiny, or you’ll see all kinds of misdirection, or shaming. Take your pick. They are either really stupid or they are being disingenuous because they don’t really care about equality. You decide, but my thought is that no one can possibly be that stupid not to see the unfairness in it. Another example is a nice exchange you had with a poster within the past couple of weeks relating to understanding women, I believe. Your comments were so lucid and sensible that I don’t see how anyone could disagree. You attempted to get her to see things from your position with one logical and reasonable point after another, and while you may have made a blog friend, she didn’t really concede to any of your points during that entire, long exchange (if she did concede to anything, it was very little if memory serves).
At any rate, that’s why I feel like attempting get women to come to the realization that men have issues, too, is ultimately fruitless. IMO, I think the solution lies in men creating awareness among each other that they aren’t wrong in feeling that something isn’t right with certain laws or social conventions, and encouraging them to protect themselves from these situations without succumbing to the predictable shaming tactics.
Chance says
Jeremy & Shaukat,
“I think it was Huxley who once said, ‘freedoms are taken, not given.’”
I would agree with that, and one freedom that I feel that all humans have a right to is the freedom from being forced to fight, and potentially die, for the country of which you happen to be a citizen. It’s a form of slavery, and the unspoken message that is sent to men is more galling than a fair amount of people realize. More specifically, not only is the government saying that men must register for possibility of being drafted to fight and die in war, but it’s saying that men must do so at a rate that doesn’t equate to what the market will bear. What is market price? The amount of compensation that you have to provide to get the people you need. The draft enables the government to bypass this, and the public is essentially saying “We expect you to die for us, but we don’t want to pay for it”. If a country wants to go to war, then the people should be willing to fund it with their taxes. At any rate, paying market price is how I believe the U.S. was able to get the troops it needed for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: offer enough of a signing bonus, and voila, you have the bodies you need. It’s embarrassing that a country’s populace that probably prides itself on capitalism more than any other mostly supports something that is inherently anti-capitalistic.
So, yes, I believe the best solution is to end conscription for all. If a country isn’t willing to go for this, then the next-best solution is to require both men and women to register for the selective service, especially since women can join the military if they want and can serve in combat roles (this is where I differ w/Stacy2’s thoughts: while most women want to be able to join the military, I don’t think most of them want to be forced to join against their will). Finally, if the country won’t go for that, then yes, I don’t think women should be allowed to vote on matters that could affect the country’s decision to go to war.
So, in a perfect world, perhaps the solution should be that if a country were to ever consider a draft, then we would have a referendum of sorts where only men could vote on whether or not we should have a draft.
Chance says
Stacy2, I can sympathize with you regarding alimony. It’s downright awful. You’re right to be disgusted with it. However, I think Jeremy is referring to the fact that the vast majority of alimony payments are paid by men to women. 97% is the percentage I seem to remember seeing. This is facilitated by two things: 1.) Women (over the age of 28 or so) are very good at making sure that they don’t get married if it’s going to cost them. Usually, when a woman gets trapped with having to pay alimony, circumstances changed significantly during the marriage where she became the primary breadwinner. However, it is rare that a woman walks down the aisle with a man who makes significantly less. 2.) Studies have shown (and I apologize for not being able to cite them off the top of my head) that men are much less likely to go after alimony when they are the lower-earning spouse because the wife is more likely to fight it (compared to a husband) and men are more likely to feel ashamed (due to very effective shaming tactics) for receiving alimony payments.
It’s usually in the rare instance when a woman finds herself in a situation where she has to pay alimony that her stance on alimony changes.
KK says
Stacy2,
In all due respect, I was hoping to hear from Jeremy.
The last response I made to you regarding men not having it as easy as you think, you completely ignored. So why the need to chime in here?
I already know how you feel about women’s rights. You’re only interested in the ones that apply directly to you. Men’s rights? Meh. To hell with men… am I right? Children’s rights? Tough! Their mother shouldn’t have been such a trusting fool! Who gives a damn if they went from living in Suburbia to living in squalor.
But, here we go again.
“If that’s what the couple really desires to do, they can have maintenance written into a prenuptial agreement”.
Right. Because nothing says I trust you and love you unconditionally more than a prenup… puleeease!
“There’s no need to set it in the law as a default for every unsuspecting adult who may be required to support their ex for nothing else than the fact that they happen to be making more”.
1) You used the term unsuspecting adult. Shouldn’t you have taken your own advice with that prenup??? Sounds like the hypocritical do as I say not as I do lingo. 2) Re-read what I actually wrote. I specifically stated that TEMPORARY alimony should only be awarded in specific circumstances. I’m not advocating for what you just stated.
“That need to be “maintained”. It should be gone, gone, gone, like yesterday”.
Genius. Prepare for a huge tax increase. Surely you don’t mind doing your part to help support all those worthless, stupid, overly trusting, naive women bee bopping around in their yoga pants AND their snot nosed brats. Because guess what? That is exactly what will happen if temporary alimony is done away with regardless of circumstances.
“If this woman can’t support herself, perhaps she should relinquish custody to her husband, who clearly can support himself and his kids, and figure out how to be an independent adult first”.
Because child custody is determined by the “fitness” of the two parents and what is in the best interest of the child(ren). In the example I gave, I clearly stated he abandoned his family. That means he doesn’t want custody of his kids. Capiche? Over the past several years (in my state) 50/50 custody is becoming more and more common. Even so, if one parent is uninterested or unfit, it doesn’t apply.
“I find it really bemusing that the courts in the U.S. use the standard of “lifestyle she became accustomed to”. I find it to be grossly unfair to the money-making spouse. Marriage becomes leg irons”.
That might very well be the case in NY or Cali and other states. Where I live, it is “the lifestyle the children are accustomed to” and it is a total and complete crock. It just doesn’t happen for the reasons I’ve already stated: 1) temporary alimony and 2) a cap on child support. Plus, no matter how big the pie is, and no matter how you slice it up, less is less. Period.
I’d love to hear your response, but I’m not going to go round and round with you on this. You have a total lack of respect or understanding about women who choose to prioritize their families by giving up their careers to care for them. Most are not spending their days lounging by the pool eating bon bons, lunching with the ladies, flirting with Pilates instructors, and occasionally throwing a frozen lasagna in the oven because ya know… domestication and sh..tuff. LOL. It’s actually a demanding and fulfilling job to take great pride in. After all, Evan’s wife is currently a stay at home mom. Do you think he’d be on board with your portrayal of SAHMs? I highly doubt so. I have a feeling he considers what his wife does for his family to be of value. Many men do. Which, funnily enough brings up another point.
You’ve literally been trying to make the case for having the cost of your makeup subsidized by the random guys you date. LOL!!! Yet, you are thoroughly pissed that a woman who has ACTUALLY ADDED VALUE to a man’s life be financially reimbursed in any way. Let’s make a list of all the things a SAHM does and find out how much it would cost to hire that work out? Live in maid, cook, nanny, chauffeur, entertainment coordinator, family event and vacation planner, financial planner, personal shopper, personal assistant, errand runner……. I could go on, but that’s just off the top of my head.
Jeremy says
@KK, like so many things, this issue is complicated. Should SAHMs be thrown out on the street with no way of supporting themselves? Of course not. But…..should the baseline standard of the law be that the higher income spouse must continue supporting the lower income spouse after divorce? No, I don’t think so. I don’t think that is fair because I believe in consent. Lack of consent turns sex into rape. Lack of consent turns sharing into theft. And just as consent to sex can be withdrawn, consent to sharing income can be withdrawn – that is what divorce IS.
I think that in any marriage where one spouse wants to withdraw from the workforce, a post-nuptual agreement should be drawn up. It should stipulate the responsibilities of each spouse, and agree on the length and amount of spousal support if the marriage dissolves – and if it is agreed upon, it is fair.
Many people think that such agreements are not romantic. But they forget that marriage itself is a financial contract, especially as it is set up today. Most women don’t find marriage un-romantic because it protects them. Some women believe that agreements show a lack of trust – but again, marriage itself currently shows a lack of trust to men. It says – if you leave me, you will have to pay me. A much better display of trust, IMHO, is entering into marriage in good faith and negotiating responsibilities together, in a mutually-agreed upon way. If it is agreed, it is fair.
KK says
Jeremy,
“I think that in any marriage where one spouse wants to withdraw from the workforce, a post-nuptual agreement should be drawn up”.
Sounds great. The problem is that it will never happen; not on a large scale, anyway, simply because of the nature of the relationship. Usually when someone withdraws from the workforce, it’s because of children. So when that conversation takes place beforehand and it’s mutually agreed upon, most people aren’t going to feel the need to protect themselves legally. If we’re talking about a good marriage, there’s implicit trust. This is the person you trust more than anyone else, the person who knows everything about you, your safe place no matter what the world throws at you. So, even though we can take a very practical stance and say what should happen, I don’t think massive amounts of men or women will find it necessary regardless of how many times they’re warned.
If you have an acquaintance that asks to borrow, let’s say $10,000 from you and you want to help and are able to help, you’d be a fool to hand over the money without a contract stipulating how and when you’ll be paid back. If, on the other hand, your best friend of 20 years asks to borrow $10,000 and promises to pay you back at the end of the month, does it make you a fool to trust him? I don’t believe so; not if you trust this person. And this is what happens in marriage.
Stacy2 says
@KK:
Prepare for a huge tax increase. Surely you don’t mind doing your part to help support all those worthless, stupid, overly trusting, naive women bee bopping around in their yoga pants AND their snot nosed brats. Because guess what? That is exactly what will happen if temporary alimony is done away with regardless of circumstances.
Nope, nothing of this sort would happen. I believe that if spousal support was completely abolished, women would not be opting out of workforce to be SAHMs. It is simply rational economic behavior. If you know you will be “maintained” after the divorce – hell yeah it’s a good deal to quit your job and plan playdates for the next 15 years. But if you know that should your husband leave you’d be required to support yourself, fully 100% from day one, you would think twice about this choice. That’s all there is.
Chance:
the fact that the vast majority of alimony payments are paid by men to women. 97% is the percentage I seem to remember seeing. This is facilitated by two things: 1.) Women (over the age of 28 or so) are very good at making sure that they don’t get married if it’s going to cost them. 2.) Studies have shown that men are much less likely to go after alimony when they are the lower-earning spouse
And whose fault is that exactly? Women’s? Don’t think so. Perhaps men should take a page out of women’s playbook and place a higher value on the financial situation and earning potential of their prospective spouses. So far what I’ve read on this blog is that men take pride in “not caring about how much a woman makes, only about how she makes them feel”. Well they are fools and they will be separated from their money. Serves these men right. And on #2 – again nothing is stopping them, clearly from seeking it.
Evan Marc Katz says
Blog topic: “How Can I Turn Drinks into Dinner Without Scaring Guys Off?” Maybe it’s time to shut this one down.
Adrian says
Hi Evan,
For what it’s worth, many readers who are not commenting on these sub-sub… of a subbed sub conversation???
Still are learning from the debates.
My only suggestion is that they make sure to keep everything relevant to dating and relationships.
…
..
.
Either way, I am just thankful that you have allowed this.
Remember I have went back and read all your blogs including your very first few, so
– I remember the days when you didn’t even allow sub conversations or any conversation that had nothing to do with the main topic
– I remember when you did not allow multiple post from one commenter
– and I remember when you didn’t allow commenters to ask dating questions even to each other in the comments section.
Oh and I also remember when you debated shutting down the comments section because of all the negativity.
Evan Marc Katz says
1. I still don’t allow people to ask their own questions to hijack the forum. If you wrote, “Hey, I have this issue with this girl. Can you help me out?” it should be in the trash. If it got through, it’s because my assistant let it through or because I was too tired to pay close attention. I still don’t want hundreds of people asking for advice in the comments section.
2. I’ve always allowed multiple posts. What I didn’t like was people replying to one post three consecutive times, thereby stifling the conversation and boring other people.
3. As recently as last week, I was thinking of shutting down the comments section because of the negativity. Alas, I have bigger fish to fry than the fact that a post about “turning drinks into dinner” is nearly at 500 comments that have nothing to do with the original post. We all have to choose our battles.
Thanks for reading. Just know: I’m not any different. Just a little busier and less likely to read things closely. 🙂
Katie says
I don’t know how you guys manage to do any serious dating with all this activity here.
Oh stop. You are the most prolific comment-maker here from what I’ve seen
Perhaps, rather than discussing what’s “fair” till everybody’s green in the face you should practice some unfairness in out in real life (personally i just came back from a spa weekend trip with my beau.
This smells of bragging. Practicing unfairness in real life is exemplified by a couples vacation spa? Whether you intended it this way or not, this reads as a gloat, because it completely irrelevant to the paragraphs opening statement. It’s like saying ‘Rather than practice unkindness, you should practice kindness like me and personally I got a tattoo this weekend.’
Marika says
Stacy2, Chance, Shaukat et al.
Can we please, please call a truce on this? Both genders have their own challenges to deal with in dating & relationships, that we can’t hope to fully understand without walking a mile in their pumps/moccasins (sp?).
Maybe we can take comfort in this: The fact that we can sit here typing away comments on blogs on our laptops/smartphones about how hard we have it because we need to spend x on clothes, hairstyles, hair removal, watches & dinners, makes us luckier than maybe 95% of the world’s population who would kill to have our problems (I have no Google stats to back me up on this, I’m guessing).
Evan gives away a lot of useful, free advice on this site. Let’s not abuse that by getting into endless petty arguments about who has it harder – the fact is we collectively have it a hell of a lot easier than most of the world, and than at any other time in history.
I’m not trying to say it’s not tough out there, but can we please try more gratitude, more support, more listening & taking on board the other’s perspective & less pettiness, name calling & arguing? We can all learn a lot from each other if we put the ego aside.
I know I’ve learned a lot from reading this blog (and some of the comments).
Appreciated.
Evan Marc Katz says
(slow clap for Marika)
Marika says
* Blushing * 🙂
And yet an unproductive, nasty, highly personal & largely off topic discussion continues…(which has little if anything to do with trying to move drinks into dinner..)
I wonder if we can encourage those who are continuing this debate to swap contact details and take this conversation off-line?
It’s incredibly disappointing that some people on this blog like to hijack posts to launch off-topic personal attacks & force their own agendas, which are unfortunately doing nothing to help them with their dating lives.
I’ve thought about not reading the comments, but sometimes the comments give me yet another useful perspective I’ve never considered. It’s unfortunate we need to wade through petty squabbles to get to the good stuff.
Evan Marc Katz says
Agreed. I don’t censor comments unless they are questions or unless they are intensely personal attacks. So far, this has just been a very heated argument with a few women who both have valid points but are largely talking past each other. I stay out of it.
Shaukat says
And yet an unproductive, nasty, highly personal & largely off topic discussion continues
Actually Marika, as someone who used to enjoy your posts, I can tell you that if you keep shaming people who are engaging in debate (even if it’s off topic debate) you’ll eventually end up with ‘group-think’ or some other Orwellian state of affairs. I often check this site and find comments that don’t interest me or that I find annoying; I simply move on instead of throwing a tantrum. You’re either aiming for cheap applause or have a very weak constitution. It’s not hard to wade through comments, and sometimes it can be entertaining. I’m saying this as someone who rarely agrees with the two women engaged in this debate.
Katie says
I often check this site and find comments that don’t interest me or that I find annoying; I simply move on instead of throwing a tantrum.
+1
Marika says
Evan
I can’t reply to your comment above, so am putting it here as a sincere request please not to close the comments. I can entirely understand why you’d be tempted to, but obviously you can’t answer ever single question or deal with every possible issue & I know I learn a lot during some of the more productive conversations. I’m sure I’m not alone here.
If that’s ever a likelihood, maybe you can let us know in advance what comments are borderline or what the rules are around commenting so we can avoid having to shut it down entirely?
Marika says
Shaukat,
No tantrum. No weak constitution. You don’t mind the spite. I do. I find it depressing. So I’m asking if they will stop the ongoing arguments as they get less & less productive and more and more personal, as well as off-topic. It got to the point that people actually asked the moderator to step in when one commenter on this thread went too far. I think that’s a problem.
So I can ask. And they, of course, can say no.
Perhaps this can be one of the comments you just move on from, rather than contributing to the nastiness?
Katie says
Stop with the self-righteous, pearl clutching then. If you don’t have anything to add to this topic, move to another that you do.
Marika says
Katie: the topic is (was supposed to be) Turning Dinner into Drinks. Instead that’s been hijacked into random tangents & personal attacks that I’m pretty sure wouldn’t be made without the Internet to hide behind.
That’s the whole point. This thread isn’t adding anything to the topic.
Simple.
Shaukat says
Marika, there are numerous threads that devolve into sub-topics that are sometimes not related to the original issue. Maybe sometimes that can be a problem, but often it’s possible to derive some value from those sub-issues as well. I’m not sure why it’s such as issue for you-you have full autonomy here. Rather than trying to police it, click on a different thread.
Kyra says
I’m truly curious about the men who find the current state of dating (men, essentially, paying for the drinks/dinner/etc. to impress their dates) to be problematic and a “waste” of their time, does that also include the amount of time and money that women put in to impress their dates? We’re talking a second or third date with a man you are genuinely interested in (that, and let’s be honest, still could result in zero ROI).
Getting our hair done upwards of $50-150
Getting manicures/pedicures: $15-45
News shoes/outfit: Let’s just say $50-200
Taxi/Ride share to meet you: $15-40
Make-up: $20-50
What I think some men are not realizing is that you may be plopping down your credit/debit card at the end of the date, but a woman has done the exact same thing days before you have in an effort to impress you. You’re not exactly getting nothing out of your date. For the price of drinks/dinner, you’re getting a woman who has used her hard earned money to provide you with a dating partner who looks, smells and appears attractive to and for you. One who will continue to do so should you provide for her in a way she finds attractive.
We women aren’t dating for free. Far from. Our expenses in dating are equally as astronomical as yours. That’s the equality of the dating game.
Evan Marc Katz says
We’ve covered this ground before, Kyra. It’s tiresome. Unless you get your hair done, mani/pedi, new shoes/outfit, new makeup for EVERY date, you’re really exaggerating here. In fact, the more things you layer on, the more most men will roll their eyes at the comparison. Shower. Put on clothes. Put on your hair/makeup. You don’t need to buy a single thing to be a great first date. But men had better pick up the check. That’s the difference.
Stacy2 says
Actually, this can be completely expressed in economic terms. Women have mostly fixed cost structure (ie spend more or less the same amount every month to maintain looks). Men have mostly variable cost structure (ie pay per date). Just because you have fixed cost does not mean that you’re running a “profitable” business, that means though that you have a higher operating leverage, or in laymen’ s terms – it’s a volumes game. Econ 101 tells us that with such cost structure you really need to scale up the number of units you produce to spread your cost over it. I this case – you need to rack up like a LOT of dates to make it worthwhile, as a woman.
Say you spend $500 per month on “beauty” (which goes above and beyond simply looking professional for work) and go on 10 dates. Your cost is $50/date. Which is roughly what a guy would spend on say wine and appetizers, so that’s ok.
If, however, you only go on 2 dates per month your cost is now $250/date. Ouch. That is getting expensive. I guess this is why so many married women “let themselves go”.
For a guy though, given his lack of operating leverage, the name of the game is to increase per-unit margin. In this case, have higher ratio of follow up dated to first dates. How to do that is a whole separate subject.
The point though is, women’s fixed costs are real and can’t be dismissed. And if a woman doesn’t go on a lot of dates, it is the same as if spending all that money for just 1-2 dates…
Shaukat says
The point though is, women’s fixed costs are real and can’t be dismissed.
This is all based on a number of fallacious assumptions: 1). that women are incurring these costs for the sole purpose of dating (and not say, due to vanity, for the intrinsic value of looking good, etc); 2). that men do not incur similar costs (in time and money) for the purpose of self-improvement.
Both your assumptions are false. Just look at the measures listed by ScottH below. You’re actually not talking about what it takes to look good before a date, you’re actually referring to self-improvement broadly speaking. You think that because some women spend thousands in order to conform to the ideal beauty type represented in the media, that this justifies the social custom of men paying for dates. However, there is an equivalent of this type of self-improvement on the male side as well. Think of the skinny or overweight guy who spends years of time and a lot of money dieting down and building muscle.
Rather than trying to justify this arrangement based on fallacious arguments, be honest: that you want men to pay for dates because in your world a man throwing money at you is evidence of love or intentions that go beyond sex.
Stacy2 says
1). that women are incurring these costs for the sole purpose of dating (and not say, due to vanity, for the intrinsic value of looking good, etc)
No actually i specifically accounted for that by stating – we are going to allocate to dating only the costs that go above and beyond simply looking professional for work.
I can tell you that if for whatever reason i knew that I would never date or be with a man again (say i joined a monastery or decided to self-identify as a man lol ), my beauty expenses would grind to a complete halt. You would never see me on the goddamn treadmill, i would cut my hair short and never get highlights again, clip my own nails and never paint, and of course waxing would be simply out. I’d probably never shave either cause razors are expensive. And of course zero expenses on cosmetic products or procedures. None of that has any intrinsic value. None of that is needed for my regular everyday life and work.
2). that men do not incur similar costs (in time and money) for the purpose of self-improvement.
They don’t, not on an ongoing basis. I have lived with men. I’ve been married to men and I have a very good idea on what men spend on their appearances. As do other women, which is why your point that “men spend it too” continues to fall flat. Do you really think we’re idiots and we don’t know what our husbands and boyfriends spend? My boyfriend’s bathroom contains a 2-in-1 shampoo and wash ($3.99), a hair brush and a roll of toilet paper. That’s it. He has never seen the inside of any beauty salon. Who are you kidding?
Just look at the measures listed by ScottH below.
Sorry, a no-go. Apples to oranges. A one-time cosmetic surgery is not a recurring dating expense. He spends this money once in his life and gets to ammortize it over the lifetime of dates.
And if you really want to compare specifically what men and women spend on plastic surgery, you should consider that it’s a $15B market in the US where women have 91% of all procedures. Ninety one percent!! Do you really want to go there, complaining how much men spend on cosmetic surgeries? Didn’t think so.
ScottH says
oh Stacy2, puhleeaaasse…. I have to buy and maintain a fine automobile and groom it weekly. You think shampoo is expensive for your head? A fine automobile uses much more. Then, there’s Finishing School (after starting school). I have to get my poodle groomed and trained should a date ever see him. The list is endless. And in the end, we have to ask, plan, and pay while you merely evaluate our efforts which 99.9% of the time aren’t good enough and we’re out yet again. Grind that through your high finance balance sheet software and tell us what you get.
Kyra says
Here’s where reading comprehension comes into play (yours and mine, because I didn’t read through the many responses to see that individuals had broached this subject), I very clearly stated: We’re talking a second or third date with a man you are genuinely interested in. And, that’s part of the problem, I feel, with this continued argument between men and women. Trust me, if I could walk into a first date in a pair of yoga pants. no make-up and a bun on my head I would. I make an effort on a first date. Sometimes I purchase something new, sometimes I get my nails/toes done, sometimes I just check the closet and go with what I have. But, we can shoo away the reality that women spend money on dating nearly as equally as men do.
Men want to “enough” a woman when she discusses the very real expenses that they incur in dating because (they feel) they don’t actually see or receive the monetary benefits of these expenses. “Well, you women had a nice meal.” Ok, well, look at me. Eat it up. You’re getting a feast for your eyes with every things I purchased to look good explicitly for you.
Men are welcome to roll their eyes, but if you read Stacy2’s 46.1.1 breakdown of the fixed cost structure that women have to, essentially, attain a “feminine look” that is appealing to men you see it is very high per mo./year. If you break that down in comparison to the variable costs men spend on dates per year, they can be quite comparable.
If you want us to stop talking about it, ok. I can go with that. If women are discussing their expenses ad naseum and should keep our mouths shut because it’s “enough,” I for darn sure don’t ever want to hear a man complain again about the $188 dollars he spent on a date. We’ve had just about enough of that too. Why don’t we, men and women, just stop this discussion and understand that gender roles in dating are, unfortunately, a thing. Men are largely/primarily desired for what they can provide. Women are largely/primarily desired for their physical beauty. Each of these include expenses that the other gender perhaps do not take into account and/or see in concrete forms.
if you’re a dater with some sense of understanding for others, you realize that the other has probably spent their money in an effort to impress or please you and show appreciation. A man recently took me to an expensive restaurant for our first date. After, we went for drinks and I happily picked up the tab in appreciation. We weren’t a match, but I wasn’t going to talk away letting him know I didn’t appreciate the expense he took responsibility for in order to show a woman a nice night on the town. And, hopefully, he noted the nice dress and the necklace I wore to look attractive for him (the wait staff did, and made mention of it) and thought for even a moment that, perhaps, I bought something pretty just to catch and keep his eye. The week before that a man took me to a wonderful French restaurant and, after, bought very expensive wines for us to enjoy. We weren’t a long term match either, but, trust me, I had a great time and he got a very enjoyable ROI on his investment that night.
Everyone takes a little out of their wallet to please the other. Square deal. So, yea, I agree. Enough. We can all stop complaining about how much we spend in dating. I absolutely agree with you, Evan.
Kyra says
*But, we can’t shoo away the reality that women spend money on dating nearly as equally as men do.
ScottH says
Kyra-
I had a hair transplant for many thousands of dollars because women don’t like bald men
Liposuction for many thousands of dollars because women don’t like fat men
A gym membership and I hire someone to do the work for me bc it’s too hard
Custom clothes because women like a sharp dressed men for many thousands of dollars,
Custom underwear because women like that
And I’m still reading this blog on Saturday nights after buying dinner and drinks for women like you.
Now enough already…..
Stacy2 says
With all due respect, it is clear that your investments are not producing desired returns. Have you ever stopped to consider that you’re investing in the wrong place??? That may be, just may be, women do not care that much about your appearance after all?? Wouldn’t that be a logical conclusion from your experience? In business terms we refer to this situation as “destruction of capital”.
Kyra says
I’d honestly like to understand who is this woman looking to date a man with a hair transplant, a thousand dollar suit and custom underwear.
My last date was a bald man wearing a nice sweater and jeans likely from an off the rack store. We had a wonderful Saturday evening that ended at 3am. After he paid for dinner we went to a lounge where I paid for drinks. Had he asked me out again, I would have said yes.
Perhaps you’re seeking and dating the wrong women and should be dating women like me.
I’d agree with Stacy2, perhaps investing in other places than your physical looks could lead to a more successful and pleasurable dating life for yourself.
KK says
Kyra,
ScottH was being facetious.
Tom10 says
@ Stacy2.
Er, I think ScottH was being sarcastic there while trying make a point as I don’t think any guys have custom underwear! Lol.
Although unfortunately, drawing an equivalence between the expenditure men and women invest in their appearance through sarcasm nullifies his actual point.
For what it’s worth I’m not too impressed when I read the comments from male commenters here moaning about having to pay for dates; no-one is making them pay for those dates so their moaning is tiresome. I meet plenty of women who are happy to contribute towards dates so, rather than complain about women expecting the guy paying for the date; I simply cut off them off and move on to women with matching values. Much less hassle. They should really direct their ire at the guys who pay for dates even though they really dislike doing so.
Similarly, it’s equally tiresome to hear women moan about how much they have to invest in their appearance; if you don’t like making such effort simply move onto the guys who aren’t so appearance obsessed and stop moaning.
Stacy2 says
Tom10:
drawing an equivalence between the expenditure men and women invest in their appearance through sarcasm nullifies his actual point.
I would say, it proves your opponent’s point LOL
you don’t like making such effort simply move onto the guys who aren’t so appearance obsessed and stop moaning
I am yet to meet those guys. Like somebody else here said, the day i can show up on a date wearing my yoga pants and gym hair up in a bun and be successful on that date, amen, i will gladly split it. What gets most women here, i guess, is the fact that men still clearly prefer dolled-up looks, conventional beauty, etc. while moaning about paying for dates. You cant’ have your cake and eat it too. You can’t expect a woman work hard to impress you, but not do your part to impress her.
KK says
Stacy2,
I’m not re-entering this discussion because quite frankly, it’s stupid. But as a society, could we please do away with the overused phrase, “you can’t have your cake and eat it too”? Who the hell wants cake that they can’t eat? What exactly am I supposed to do with it? Lol
Shaukat says
You can’t expect a woman work hard to impress you, but not do your part to impress her.
We just disagree on what does, or should, impress most women. I would think you should be impressed by a combination of physical attraction, charm, humor, intelligence, confidence, etc, no? In fact, why a woman as established and financially successful as you would be impressed by a guys’ ability/willingness to pay for your meal is a bit baffling to be honest.
Also, I’m pretty sure a guy couldn’t show up for a date with you wearing his gym clothes and expect a second date either.
Chance says
Tom10, I agree with you. I’ve traveled a bit across Western Europe, and I’ve found that attitudes towards dating are much more egalitarian than they are here in North America (especially in the States). As a result, I don’t think as many guys over here have mustered up the courage to be a trail blazer by not subsidizing women in the way that men in Europe seem to feel more free from doing. It is absolutely on the guy to change his situation, but I suspect that a lot of American guys know that if they won’t pay, then the next guy will (thereby making it “effective” to pay). In other words, there’s strength in numbers: the more guys out there who refuse to pay, the “less ineffective” it becomes to not pay. Which brings me to why I come here: I am under no illusion that I will ever change a woman’s mind here about anything. Rather, I am here so that other guys can witness a guy who freely challenges feminine-constructed social conventions (on a women’s forum) sans a shred of fear of looking like a jerk-off because way too many American men are in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails as a result of being terrified of not knowing how to behave around women (and I thank EMK for having the patience to tolerate me).
Callie says
KK – “having your cake and eating it too”
OMG it took me forever to understand that saying too! I just never got it, why the devil am I having cake and not eating it, isn’t “having” the same thing as “eating” to begin with.
But finally I figured it out. Think of it this way: Imagine a really fancy Cake Boss like cake, with all the decorations, it’s shaped like something amazing, it’s basically a work of art. It’s like those wedding cakes that you feel is such a shame to cut into. If you eat it, it means it’s gone, you don’t get to keep the work of art. And so you’re all “I wish we could both eat the cake AND keep it as it is as a work of art!”
That’s what “having” means in this particular version of it. Having = keeping it whole and like it is before you eat it. So one can’t have a cake and eat it. You can only have it OR eat it.
If I’m making sense.
Anyway, slight digression but since figuring it out for myself I like to spread the good word as often as I can 😉 .
Stacy2 says
@KK and Callie
It feels really strange as a non native speaker to explain an english idiom to you guys, but here it goes: If you eat your cake, you will no longer have it (you will have consumed it, its gone). Hence, you can not both eat it, and still have it. So the expression means you can’t have things that are mutually exclusive, or you can’t have something without sacrificing something else. Hope this clears it up.
KK says
Chance said, ” As a result, I don’t think as many guys over here have mustered up the courage to be a trail blazer by not subsidizing women in the way that men in Europe seem to feel more free from doing”.
Thanks for the laugh, but you’re not a courageous trailblazer. Lol.
“Which brings me to why I come here: I am under no illusion that I will ever change a woman’s mind here about anything”.
No, you won’t, because you’ve made it very clear you’re extremely mysoginistic and not concerned with anyone other than yourself. As a result, you’re dismissed. Evan challenges women constantly and some of us have changed our minds on different topics because of him. Take Jeremy as another example. He’s happily married. He’s shared challenges within his marriage. He’s fair minded. As a result, women here respect his opinions and actually listen to him. He also could challenge our beliefs and have it result in a productive dialogue. But let’s be honest. That’s not the only reason you’re here. You love to stir the pot. When women such as myself and others chime in when sexist remarks are made against men, you’re freakishly quiet. You’re not willing to even acknowledge fairness towards men when it’s being promoted by women.
“Rather, I am here so that other guys can witness a guy who freely challenges feminine-constructed social conventions (on a women’s forum)…”
I’m not so sure that’s what other guys are witnessing. I’m witnessing someone who throws hissy fits when his comments are challenged, such as a most recent one directed towards me. What was it again? “I will never respond to you again. Not ever!” Lol! Doesn’t exactly advertise courageous trailblazer…
KK says
Hi Callie,
I understand what it means. I still think it sounds silly. 😊
Tron Swanson says
This guy appreciates it, Chance.
I know what you mean about too many men being afraid to disagree with women in certain areas. When I learned that female approval did not usually lead to sex, I stopped seeking female approval.
Callie says
Stacy 2 – uh . . . yes . . . I know . . . that’s literally what I explained to KK . . .
KK – ah cool! Sorry for the misunderstanding. For the record I share your sentiment about the silliness of the saying. It’s not my fav either. Another saying that really got me was in the UK if a stranger sees you looking sad they might say, “It might never happen” in order to make you feel better. Took me FOREVER to realise what they were saying was “The bad thing you are thinking about might never actually happen”. The problem was often what I was thinking about was “I’ll never get this job” or “I’ll never get a boyfriend” or something, so when they’d say that to me I’d just want to yell back, “I know! That’s why I look so sad!” 🙂
Kyra says
Kyra-
I had a hair transplant for many thousands of dollars because women don’t like bald men
Bald men are sexy. I prefer bald men over men with hair and a transplant. I know women who love bald men as well. If you’re sitting at home on Saturday nights reading this blog because you think women don’t like bald men… you may need to do more work on your dating life than just reading this blog.
You are quite right. Enough already.
Kyra says
I appreciate all of the men defining what sarcasm and facetiousness are to me and Stacy2. You know, as as if we weren’t clear his comments to a very real conversation were simply that, sarcasm and facetiousness in an attempt to discredit our points of view.
Not to mention an added “enough…” in attempt to just get us to shut up because, you know, he’s oh so tired of hearing about how much women spend in the dating world.
What we were pointing out in response to his facetious comments–in response to our very real responses– is that perhaps if he had more salient and thoughtful points to add to the discussion, maybe he’d have more salient and thoughtful resolutions to incorporate in his dating life in order for it to be successful. As Tom10 very eloquently stated, “…drawing an equivalence between the expenditure men and women invest in their appearance through sarcasm nullifies his actual point.”
Perhaps he isn’t having success with women because, instead of listening to them, he facetiously and sarcastically casts them off (while, at the same time, complaining about the amount of money he chooses to spend on them on a date with no ROI). An investment in working on this issue instead of the ones he sarcastically listed might be what he needs to make his Saturday nights a bit more successful dating-wise.
ScottH says
What he intended to do with his sarcasm was to try to show that this discussion could go on ad nauseam, with no possibility of resolution, as it has. Mars and venus
Now i’m going to have a piece of cake and plan my date for Saturday night
KK says
ScottH,
“Now i’m going to have a piece of cake and plan my date for Saturday night”.
Make sure you eat it too! 😉
Kyra says
That may be what he believes he did, but what he actually did was attempt to discredit and quiet a person who came into a conversation later than others. He communicated, in certain words (“enough already”) that the individual should keep their thoughts to themselves and not take part in the conversation 1) because he says so, 2) because he deems it’s enough and 3) because he feels the length of topic discussion is undesirable to him. If he had enough of the conversation, he should have politely ignored the comment and kept sarcastic remarks to himself because it not only nullified his argument, but showed him to be rude and attempting to police other people’s choice of discussion.
Unless the initials in his name are E, M and K policing people’s words on this board aren’t what he’s paid for or authorized to do.
He definitely should enjoy his cake and his date on Saturday. Make the most of it. Have a great time. Wish her well next day if interested. Ask her out again next day if not interested. But, definitely don’t worry about how pays. If she’s a good one, she will or she’ll start to. Only more dates will determine that. One never does.
Signed,
“A Woman Like Me”
Kyra says
“Wish her well next day if interested. Ask her out again next day if not interested.
As Missy Eliot says, “put your thing down, flip it and reverse it.”
Jeremy says
@Chance (new thread because the old one was just too long). I get it. I understand where you’re coming from. There was a point in time when I shared your outlook. I saw a world where women were used to getting what they wanted (at least, in the relationship sphere) and took for granted that their point of view was correct (and men’s POV simply immature), and considered that they were either very stupid or very manipulative. I no longer believe that.
The turning point, for me, was understanding the works of Kahneman and Tversky on heuristics and biases. The way that humans anchor over certain ideas, the notions of judgment bias (especially availability and confirmation biases). It is not that women are stupid or manipulative. It is that they are anchored on the ideas they are raised with (as are men). The women who were unable to understand Evan’s post on the unfairness of male child-support are anchored on the idea that child support is the standard. If it is the standard, then our bias is to maintain the standard and to rationalize it post-hoc (as so many of the commenters did on that thread). This is how alimony and child support are rationalized by women. It is how denying women certain rights in the past was rationalized by men. It is not stupidity or manipulation. It is human frailty and bias.
You mentioned the reason you come to this site, so I’ll mention mine – since it may seem odd for a married man to be on a dating advice site for women. I believe that the best path to human happiness comes from good relationships – for men and for women. But good relationships are predicated on mutual understanding. Too many women believe that their POV is the gold standard and that any male POV is immature. These women will be doomed to relationships where either they or their future husband will be miserable. The women who come to this site come here because they realize there is something they need to know, to understand, about men. That understanding the male POV is something that is important for their own happiness. For the women who undertake that search, I want to help because I think that the search is noble – as it is noble for men who wish to understand women.
And it is important, IMHO, that when these women seek understanding, that it be offered in a respectful and kind way, with an open mind to their POV as well. Because if we talk over them, disrespect them, denigrate them – well then why would they ever listen to us? We would only be reinforcing the idea that our POV is immature. Whether I’ve ever successfully gotten anyone to actually change their mind about anything may be uncertain…..but maybe I’ve at least conveyed to some women that another perspective is out there, that it is intelligent, and is perhaps worth considering.
You may think I’m wasting my time, but I don’t.
Evan Marc Katz says
Applause for Jeremy! (Also, read Michael Lewis’ new book on Kahneman/Tversky. You’ll thank me.)
Chance says
Good comment, Jeremy, and yes, I understand that we all have a tendency to anchor over certain ideas, which influences our biases. However, is this entirely due to socialization, or are there biological differences between the sexes that result in women having a stronger propensity to anchor over certain ideas in a subconscious attempt to avoid an uncomfortable truth? Or, are these two possibilities actually related? In other words, can women have a stronger propensity to lock onto certain ideas and thereby create effective social norms that – over time – establish their ideas and imperatives as the “correct” ideas and imperatives?
I’m not trying to partially disagree with you, but rather I am thinking out loud and considering a theory that I believe has some potential merit, and admittedly, it is based on my anecdotes. I understand that any attempt by a man to analyze the nature of women must be, at best, mocked, if not deemed misogynistic. So, I certainly acknowledge that there are biological differences between the sexes that have more pronounced negative behavioral manifestations in men (violence probably being the most obvious).
With this said, I can’t seem to shake the feeling that this apparent stronger propensity in women to anchor onto certain ideas may be rooted in what appears to be a generally stronger ability for women to suppress, and unconsciously dismiss, uncomfortable realities (I.e., realities that contradict with what women want to accept as truth, or what is “correct”). I think I first noticed this when I was quite young, and would see parents of a missing child on TV being interviewed or speaking to the public. Almost every time, you can get the sense that the father has accepted that the child is likely gone, but it seemed that the mother truly believed that the child was still alive and would come back home. She wasn’t stupid, and she wasn’t naive (although the latter is what I used to think). Rather, it seems that she just didn’t care about the facts, and was subconciously tapping into some apparent innate ability to suppress an uncomfortable truth. I honestly don’t think this is something with which most men can relate. I noticed the same tendencies in my mother and sisters growing up, and then in the general female population.
Of course, a reflexive response to my theory would be to say that I’m surely just exhibiting confirmation bias in my own observations, and there is probably some truth to that. However, one could just as easily argue that the motivations for dismissing my theory are, in part, driven by biases as well that have been “confirmed” with the assistance of ideas to which they are anchored.
Jeremy says
@Chance, nothing is impossible, but I’ve not noticed a gender-based difference in propensity to anchor. Nor have any psychologists or behavioral economists I’ve studied. The difference may lie in what our biases actually are, though. We are more likely to see through the biases when they don’t benefit us. Which is why women demanded the right to vote before men saw the unfairness in the system, and why more men see the unfairness of alimony compared to women. IMHO.
Chance says
Jeremy, I bought Thinking: Fast and Slow this weekend.
jeremy says
Awesome, Chance, I hope you like it :). Not an easy read, but eye opening.
Jeremy says
Read it. Loved it 🙂 Also, I omitted (because I thought it went without saying, but later realized it should be said) that you do an excellent job at doing what I described. I jump in occasionally to chime in, but the floor is yours. Just wanted to give respect.
Adrian says
Hi Jeremy,
Good point I applaud your comment.
In your opinion then what is the best thing that the men who believe that women have it better can do to not be so jaded and bitter?
Here is my own personal theory as to why many men think women have it so great in dating. These men only focus on the beautiful and even average looking women and not on the below average in looks women that struggle in dating just like everyone else.
I know it sounds callus but I think more women fit into the “just at average or below average in looks” than women who are pretty, beautiful or whatever. The reason so many men cry about older women is because most men AND women do not take care of themselves as they age; so that average women gains weight, loses her soft skin, and adds wrinkles and gray hairs as she ages. These women I think struggle in dating like everyone else does yet they are never acknowledged for having difficulty finding and attracting someone when men complain about how unfair and skewed dating is.
For example many men are quick to point out the Okcupid study on how women only message taller guys but if you look at the study it also shows that as a women’s height increases her number of contacts decreases. Short men AND taller women struggle with online dating, as well as overweight and older women .
I think women do this or a version of this as well.
…
..
.
Oh and this is nothing against the commenter Stacy2 personally but I think that for all their arguing most of the contentious guys who comment LOVE her.
She justifies their belief about women.
When a woman acknowledges Evan’s points or even compliments men in the comments it hurts the contentious men’s case for saying all women this or that.
Stacy2 energies these guys and gives them the “I told you so about women a.k.a I warned you about women” see look at her.
Chance says
Adrian, I don’t think that I agree about your observations relating to Stacy2. I don’t think she is like most women because I think she is much more transparent about her motivations on these boards than most women are on here and IRL. I admire her honesty, but I don’t think that I “love” her because she validates any beliefs I have. If anything, the comments from the other female commenters do more to validate my preconceived notions.
Adrian says
Hi Chance,
You said, “If anything, the comments from the other female commenters do more to validate my preconceived notions.”
If you don’t mind would you explain what you mean by this?
I know this does not apply to all female commentors but most seem to readily acknowledge the good of men and the bad of women in dating.
Also even Evan can be quoted as saying that his stance on men paying isn’t about fairness but about what works.
Many female commentors readily say that they like to buy things for, cook for, and just do things that both will and will not involve them spending their own money for a guy once they begin dating…
Sure they want the man to pay in the beginning but it is not about the money it is about the effort and women don’t just focus on the paying, it is simply a piece of an entire picture of a man they are trying to assemble about his character.
Again once they enter into a relationship she gives back, sometimes she gives back more.
Look at the commentor GoWithTheFlow who is a doctor and Henirette who commented that she is in the top 1% in Canada. It seems silly to me that these two women would be using me for a free meal.
$40 is probably just a drop in the bucket to them.
Or What about the commentor Emily who admitted to having 2 bachelors degrees, I doubt she would be on the hunt for a man to pay her way and buy her things when the average man doesn’t even have one bachelors degree.
and then their are commentors like SparklingEmerald, KK, Callie, Marika, and Stacy(1) who all have admitted on previous post in the past that they prefer a fun date where no money is involved over a date where the guy has to pay anything. Because again it is about the effort not the money to most women.
So how are you seeing other female commentors being more of a validation of your notions?
… … …
Again Chance please note that I can’t show tone in text but my question is not one of snark nor am I challenging your view, I am honestly curious as to why you see it this way.
Most of the regular female commentors seem to want to give as much as they can to a guy they love. So my question to you is based on my desire for you to show me what I am not seeing.
…I readily admit that I never participate in many of the sub conversations so it is possible that one of them has said something that I don’t know about…
And I haven’t dated in almost 10 years so even though you and I are around the same age, I admit that I probably don’t know as much as you and things may have changed since I last dated in college.
Chance says
Adrian: first, I’m not one of those people who think that one gender has it harder than the other when it comes to attracting the opposite sex. Also, I’m not really referring to who pays for the first few dates, but rather what I see as it relates to the financial tone of many, perhaps most, relationships. The only reason I bring this up is because I just want to make sure we’re on the same page.
In short, I’ve learned that it’s better to observe what women actually respond to versus listening to their stated preferences because the two often don’t match. What Stacy2 often says doesn’t correspond to what other females say, but it corresponds to what they respond to, in my experience.
Jeremy says
Adrian, the manosphere calls the phenomenon you describe “apex fallacy.” The notion that women only see the top 10% of men and use them as a mental representative of all men. So that when women complain about male privilege and behavior, they are really complaining about only the most privileged of men. The manosphere fails to notice, however, that they are just as guilty of apex fallacy when it comes to women 🙂
So to answer your question (as best I can), I think that we are all better at noticing the biases of other people than we are at noticing our own. So I would encourage the jaded men and women to read some books about the psychology of happiness. Daniel Kahneman, Daniel Gilbert, and Martin Seligman come to mind as excellent resources. And realize that life is too short for bitterness, and too harsh for us to deal less than kindly with others.
And one other thing, one bit of advice for the weekend – even if you feel jaded and unhappy, it’s better to fake happiness than to walk around in misery or anger. Smiling makes us happy. Smiling at others makes them happy (mirror neurons). Others acting happy makes us happy (mirror neurons). So faking being happy will often result in happiness. Being miserable has the opposite effect. YMMV.
Shaukat says
So faking being happy will often result in happiness.
Sorry Jeremy, but with all due respect, in my opinion this is nonsense. In fact, it strikes me as being so fundamentally wrong, it’s difficult to even know where to begin. Leaving aside that the advice amounts to the type of superficial mainstream self-help swill you can hear on daytime television shows like ‘The View,’ at best it amounts to placing a Band-Aid on a deep puncture wound. This type of advice is not only unhelpful, but its main purpose, intentional or not, is to detach individuals from their actual social and material environment, a form of philosophical idealism. It’s the type of faux mentality that author’s like Sinclair Lewis mocked in novels like ‘Babbit.’
Clearly, it’s not healthy to walk around in a state of perpetual anger, resentment, and bitterness. The solution, however, is to discover the roots of your misery and stamp it out, not to walk around with a fake smile plastered on your face in the hopes that you’ll eventually hypnotize yourself. It should also be noted that some of the best literature, music and art has sprung from raw emotion, be it anger, happiness, or sadness.
jeremy says
Sometimes, Shaukat, doing as I suggested is exactly the right thing to stamp out the roots of unhappiness, though not always. Many men are unhappy in their relationships and believe that their partner is the one making them unhappy. They believe that if only she would act differently, their life would be better. But try as they might, they can’t get their partner to act differently. Perhaps, in those situations, the relationship is doomed. But perhaps not. There are many things that are worth trying, as I’ve described in previous posts. One thing that sometimes works is to pretend to be happy. It is sometimes amazing the response that doing this can generate. It can sometimes effect a change in the behavior of others that is making us miserable in such a way as to stamp out the root cause of unhappiness.
I’m not suggesting that we should not allow ourselves to feel the emotions we feel. I am suggesting that chronically wearing them on our sleeve in a perpetual state of funk can sometimes BE the root cause of the unhappiness we feel. Sometimes.
KK says
Adrian,
FWIW, I’ll throw in my 2 cents.
Chance said, “I don’t think she is like most women because I think she is much more transparent about her motivations on these boards than most women are on here and IRL.”
Chance’s logic is flawed in more ways than one. First, he’s operating completely from his own negative biases against women. So like you mentioned earlier, if Stacy2 comments about herself in a way that is seen in a negative light or in a way that shows her negative biases against men, then people like Chance and Tron will absolutely engage in flaw # 2, which is the assumption that ALL women think like her and she’s the only one willing to admit it. It’s simply false. It would be just as much of a false assumption if the ladies on here read Chance and Tron’s comments and assumed that ALL men think the way they do.
Chance’s statement about Stacy2’s transparency being unlike most women is just one more example of his bias. So his false assumption is that if a woman admits she has a negative attitude towards men or some other negative aspect about herself, she is honest and women who don’t make those statements are dishonest. Each individual can only speak for themselves. Chance doesn’t speak for all men and Stacy2 doesn’t speak for all women.
What’s actually kind of sad is that people that have these very negative, deeply ingrained biases are only hurting themselves. So while some of their comments might be inflammatory or irritating, they should really be pitied.
Chance seems to be somewhat more evenhanded on issues that don’t concern women, so I’ll use this analogy. Let’s say you have a friend that’s a die hard Trump supporter (kidding…kind of) and your friend believes that ALL illegal immigrants are rapists and he tells you he recently spoke to someone (an immigrant) that admitted he raped someone. Logically, you and I know (and Chance does too) that this individual only represents himself. It would be completely ignorant to say all immigrants are rapists. But for a reason I do not know, Chance is unable or unwilling to apply that same logic in his feelings about women.
KK says
BTW, out of respect for Evan’s wishes, I’m not commenting any further on this topic, which I agree has been completely exhausted at this point. I had intended not to both times he’s mentioned it and got lured back in by the continuing commentary. Lol. Sorry, Evan!
Hopefully, Evan won’t close down the comments, because I think they actually help lead to a better understanding on a variety of the topics he posts about even though some of us, including me, go off topic. Good night 😊
Tron Swanson says
“Too many women believe that their POV is the gold standard and that any male POV is immature. These women will be doomed to relationships where…”
Exactly! Even with their flaws, these women you describe will still end up in relationships. Heavily-flawed women are doomed to bad relationships; heavily-flawed men are doomed to no relationships at all. I agree that both genders have biases and blindspots, but that’s why women have it easier in these things.
Henriette says
Are you joking, @Tron? You honestly believe that all women, no matter how heavily-flawed, can easily get in relationships? Were that true, why are so many women (including me) posting on this site, single? Do you not know any single women in your “real life” (not on this blog)? I know many.
Tron Swanson says
Hello, Henriette.
The single women that I know are single by choice; the single men that I know are single because they can’t find relationships. Whenever I’m out and about, I see “extremely non-ideal” women with wedding rings on, while men who come 1% short in a certain category are rejected.
So, yes, I believe that women can easily get in relationships. If they choose not to, it’s because they’re demanding (which is fair enough), or because something is seriously wrong with them.
Chance says
Hi Tron: first, glad I can help lol. Now to your recent post: how would your claim be mathematically possible? It’s quite possible that the woman with the ring on looked much better at the time she got married. In fact, odds are, she did – even if it was just a few years ago.
Tron Swanson says
I hadn’t thought of that aspect of it, Chance…probably because I try not to think about women like that, period. But I’d argue that the fact they still have a wedding ring on–i.e., that their husbands haven’t left them, despite the weight gain–is a sign that women have more power in relationships. If a man was struggling in terms of money or employment, you can bet that the woman would leave, for instance.
Callie says
Could it not be also possible that ultimately looks aren’t the most important thing in relationships, and that even after they fade both men and women can be very much in love with their partner because they are good people, they have fun with them, they have great sex etc?
Does it really have to be a matter of power? That someone is being forced to be in a relationship against their will? The fact that that is the first conclusion you draw. . . I actually feel truly sorry for you. You must live in a very hopeless and sad world filled with quite terrible selfish people. No one should live like that. I’m so sorry.
Tron Swanson says
Callie,
Physical attraction is all that I really care about, when it comes to other people.
I’d much rather live a life in which I didn’t have to care about power at all–and believe me, I tried to–but it’s sadly relevant to my quest to get sex. As long as women have more options than men, I’m fighting an uphill battle, so I have to view things in a strategic manner.
Chance says
Hi Tron, you’re right that women have more power within a marriage more often than not, but that’s due to legal and social constructs. However, I don’t necessarily think that women have more power in relationships. In actuality, I would say that most women want to be with a man who has the most power in the relationship (i.e., needs the other partner the least). Probably more so than any other trait, they are attracted to men who possess a strong sense of self and who are independent. The great thing about power, in this context, is that it is self-created (i.e., she can’t give it or take it away from you). It sounds like you’re fairly independent… use that to your advantage.
Callie says
Tron – that may be but that still doesn’t follow that you would therefore assume that anyone in a relationship with a partner less attractive than the other is somehow trapped. I still find it very sad that you make that assumption instead of maybe thinking that not everyone is like you.
Further, physical attraction doesn’t just derive from outward appearance. For you it might be 100% only that, but for many others there are other things to a person that turns them on. So a man with a woman you might not find attractive might a) actually still find her physically attractive because not everyone has the same taste, b) might be attracted to other qualities than just her looks (I’d like to say her wit or charm, but hey, maybe she is crazy uninhibited in the sack and does all kinds of kinky things that just knocks his socks off).
So sure, you can live in your “it’s all a power struggle” world (which actually doesn’t seem to be working for you at all, interestingly, nor do really any of the tactics you espouse here, which to me is odd that you therefore continue to stand by them but hey you do you), but please don’t assume everyone else is and just jump to the conclusion that a couple that isn’t attractive (by your definition of it) isn’t happy together.
Tron Swanson says
Chance: yeah, men have (moderately) more power in a relationship than in a marriage, in the sense that it’s easier for us to walk away. I don’t know if I buy that women are attracted to men with a strong sense of self and independence, though. If it’s a type of “self” they’re attracted to, sure, but if it’s a “self” like the one I have, not so much. And from what I’ve seen, women can take or leave strongly-independent men. I know guys that came from well-off families, who are extremely dependent on them, in the sense that they’re in the family business and need their family’s approval. This hasn’t caused women to run away from them…
Callie: where did I say that my tactics aren’t working? Sure, they aren’t working as well as I want, but they’re still more effective than dating or relationships would be. As for men being attracted to different types of women…hey, if some guys go for women that I find extremely unattractive, more power to ’em. If they get them to stop cluttering up the sexual marketplace, I’m all for it.
punq says
i dont know what to make of this either… especially i live in the city area.. so i dont have a car.. I am really unsure what to make of a ‘coffee’ and walk date.. I would basically be paying 20$ in uber just to go have a coffee in the cold? like no.. i almost want to text him like hey if you re worried abt having to pay.. either pick me up (he has a car) and i am happy to split(i alwayss alwayss offer to pay btw whether it is 1st date or not) just so kind of not sure what to think honestly.. but i just dont know if the guy is just being cheap or wants it to be a short date.. in which case like i dont want to spend 20$ for doing something i dont like .. i just texted him that soo lets see what he says