Her Double-D’s Can Bankrupt You
by Marc H. Rudov
Punani for Sale
It’s no secret that a man’s degree of irrationality, in the presence of a woman, is directly proportional to her cup size. Even though this neurophysiological phenomenon isn’t exactly the point of my treatise here, I would be remiss not to mention it. After all, reckless choices in matters female, regardless of their causes, can lead to bankruptcy, which is the point here.
Divorce is the quickest path to financial ruin, bar none. Considering modern realities—the 50% divorce rate, that women initiate 70% of divorces, and that most family courts are biased towards females—the probability is significantly high that a married man eventually will be single again, returning to the scrimping lifestyle of his younger days. It behooves him, therefore, to avoid this economic horror show. So, understanding the perniciousness of her Double-D’s must become his highest priority.
I’ve appeared on numerous radio talkshows, most recently on Maxim Radio Channel’s Covino & Rich Show, of Sirius Satellite Radio, addressing the issue of man vs. woman and the dinner check. An angry wife phoned into the show to call me an idiot, then said: “Unless you pay, no punani for you.†Of course, I called her a prostitute, right on the air, and reminded her that cash-for-sex transactions occur in whorehouses. Sadly, it seems they occur in many marriages, too. I think the caller meant to say that her husband is the idiot.
Emasculated Men
It amazes me that, in an era when females fly combat missions in Iraq, captain the space shuttle, head major universities and corporations, and represent the United States to foreign governments, many women refuse to treat men to dinner in restaurants. The fault does not lie entirely with women, though. If a woman won’t buy dinner, it’s because her man tolerates it. Some men are too chicken to insist on reciprocity, for fear of not getting laid. Others believe they can control their girlfriends through largesse. Finally, there are guys, whose wallets apparently are bigger than their testicles, who feel emasculated in the presence of cash-wielding babes willing to fete them. One could conclude that the self-confident man is a rarity today.
The Wining/Dining Poll
After hearing case after case of anecdotal evidence, I decided to conduct a wining/dining poll on my Website, in the last two weeks of March. My objective was to quantify the attitudes of men and women about who treats for dinner in restaurants. I specifically say restaurants because I don’t accept an oft-heard woman’s contention that making dinner in her home is tantamount to buying it in a public restaurant. It ain’t the same. Nothing beats the experience of a woman bold and emancipated enough to extract her credit card from her purse, in public view, and hand it to the waiter to buy me dinner. It rocks.
I divided my wining/dining poll into separate polls for men and women, respectively—men couldn’t see how the women were voting, and vice versa. I asked men whether or not they like women to buy (not offer to buy) them dinner in restaurants, and I asked women whether or not they like to buy (not offer to buy) men dinner in restaurants. The men and women voted according to marital status and age, to uncover and reflect any differences in those categories. I received responses from 420 men and 258 women, for a total of 678. The tables with the results of the two polls are shown below:
Table 1. Men’s Wining/Dining Poll
In Table 1 above, the long green bars make it easy to deduce that most men want women to buy them dinners in restaurants. In fact, 79.9% (but not 100%) want that—in line with my earlier comments. Corresponding to general demographics, there were no under-35 voters who are divorced or widowed, and just a few never-marrieds over 50. The “under-35 never-marrieds†are the most-inexperienced and -insecure men, in favor of being treated by a ratio of only 1.75:1. The 35-50-year-old divorced/widowed men, by a ratio of 7.86:1, are the most receptive to female culinary generosity, followed by the divorced/widowed over 50 at 6.41:1 and the 35-50-year-old never-marrieds at 5.89:1. All in all, guys are on board with women treating them for dinner in restaurants.
Table 2 below depicts a different story, as I expected. Overall, only 60.5% of women like to treat men to dinner—meaning that 39.5% expect to be wined and dined. Compared with the male voting, all female voting ratios are close—2:1 or lower, meaning high ambivalence. The most-generous group, by a ratio of just 2.04:1, is the never-married women over 50. Following are the never-marrieds between 35 and 50, at 1.98:1. Interestingly, the divorced/widowed under 35 and over 50 are the stingiest, sharing the ratio of 1:1. The highest number of positive responses came from the 35-50-year-old divorced/widowed women, even though the category posted the third-highest total ratio, at 1.80:1.
Table 2. Women’s Wining/Dining Poll
Culinary Conclusions
The wining/dining poll shows with specificity what I have learned anecdotally through my own dating experiences, conversations with friends, e-mails from readers, and radio interviews—that there is a big disconnect between what men want and what women want. What’s new?
The poll doesn’t show everything, however. A lot of men who say they like women to treat them don’t always demand it. They should. Giving is not the man’s job. If a woman doesn’t reciprocate, without your prompting, why do you want to be with her? Dump her. It’s sad to meet guys who are silently resentful but complicit in the female-entitlement game. They will grumble to their friends, and to me, but they won’t challenge women to their faces—all because they are afraid they won’t get laid. The worst culprit is the man who accepts a dinner invitation from a generous woman, making him her guest, but he grabs the check at the last minute, refusing to let her pay—as if he has the authority to overrule her. Insecure guy. Stupid guy. Weak woman. Disingenuous woman.
Based on everything I’ve culled from this exercise and all my experiences to date, I’ve concluded that male and female diners fit into seven categories, as shown below:
Only the men and women in categories #1 and #4 above, respectively, are straightforward, above-board, agenda-free, entitlement-free people. Those in the other five categories, however, are either content to live in perpetual states of mystery, unspoken feelings, and awkwardness or are selfish gameplayers. Either way, danger lurks on the horizon, as we shall see.
Her Double-D’s
Every relationship has two termination points, the beginning and the end. The best end for a married couple is natural death in old age, after many years of happiness. Unfortunately, at least half of marriages end prematurely, in divorce. And, as I indicated in the first section of this article, women seek 70% of all divorces. According to credible research, the biggest reason women seek divorce is to take custody of the children, the most important assets of the marriage. This means that most men, by definition, enter marriages in positions of weakness.
In the marriage so typical of modern society, the beginning and ending points are dating and divorce, respectively: The Double-D’s. Think of The Double-D’s as a pair of matching bookends that bestride the relationship’s key epics: marriage, friends, children, the house, and wealth—all of which virtually disintegrate in divorce for most men.
I contend that whatever financial dynamic occurs between a man and woman in dating will be mirrored in divorce—hence, the matching bookends. So, if a woman exhibits selfish entitlement behavior in your first few dates, as exemplified by her refusal to host you for a night on the town, she is making a cosmic statement. Overlook this statement at your own peril, for she is demonstrating just how much she’ll clean your clock in a divorce. If she feels entitled to be the primary beneficiary of the dating dollars, she will feel no compunction about taking the lion’s share of the divorce dollars, as well as custody of the children and the house—while watching with schadenfreude as you downgrade your life. And that, my friends, is how her Double-D’s can bankrupt you.
Parting Comments
There is nothing more pathetic than the guy who introduces himself to a woman by enumerating and bragging about his possessions, as if he is an empty shell of a man without his money, yacht, plane, and mansion. Most women find this approach a turnoff, but there are those who salivate at the opportunity to separate this man from his possessions. This guy feels like such a master of the universe during dating and such a loser during divorce. But, there is no mystery here, pal. Her Double-D’s were bouncing. You begged her to steal from you, and she didn’t disappoint, did she!
The next time you find yourself with a woman who says “You’re the man; you’re supposed to pay for dinner,†and you stay with her any longer than it takes to say “hit the road,†you are a fool and a masochist. By being a financial doormat, you are training her to fleece you in the future. Compare that $50 meal she won’t buy you today with the $150,000 legal bill you’ll have in a few years—not to mention losing half of your assets, plus paying alimony and child support. Never stop thinking about her Double-D’s. It’s up to you. Bon appetit!
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an investment banker and business consultant residing in Silicon Valley, CA. He is the author of the book The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet EarthTM (ISBN 0974501719) and 16 articles:
| “Five Myths About Women†| “Romance Lessons from Tsunami Animals†|
| “The Golden Rule Dictates Your Sex Life†| “Why Men Dread Valentine’s Day†|
| “How Every Man Can Land His Dream Woman†| “Cellular Compatibility & Great Sex†|
| “Can Men and Women Really Get Along?†| “Why Men Avoid Commitment†|
| “Did Your Make Your New Year’s Revolution?†| “Will She Call 911 on You?†|
| “Will Women Halt the Death of Marriage?†| “BreakUp Means BreakUp! |
| “Love Hurts†| “The Power of Aural Sex†|
| “If Women Were Happy†| “Her Double-Ds Can Bankrupt You†|
Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.thenononsenseman.com/.
Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
| More from Marc H. Rudov
Stumble It!
April 17th, 2006 at 10:51 am
The poll should have also specified when asking men’s preferences that when the theoretical woman paid for dinner there wouldn’t be any negative repercussions to him accepting. Men learn, similar to dogs, that accepting a woman’s offer to pay (usually just for herself) at the end of a date is a signal of her dislike for him or a cheap test (literally) to see if he’ll accept. He then has to pretend that he loves “insisting” to pick up the check to get his balls back.
Making matters worse, many such North American women add insult to injury by arguing that she doesn’t insist upon the man paying but rather just following the “asker pays” rule. This allows her to then be as passive as possible about showing interest in a man and playing hard-to-get. It’s no wonder that many young men are foregoing the dating game altogether and just going for “hook-ups”.
Truly traditional dating used to be about the couple spending time together but less sexually charged. I heard modern women scoff at the notion of her family hosting him for tea. “What does he think?” they sneered, “that he should “invite” her to have her family host him for tea?” I responded that he could invite her for tea at his home and they put on a petticoat and claimed they were worried about their security when going to a relative stranger’s home (but accepting large gifts from strangers in the form of free meals is ok.) But, yes, in the old days it was not uncommon for young men to come “courting” and to ask permission to visit her in the presence of her family.
The dinner-date ritual then is often a contest of wills between young flirty women rolling chumps for dinners and young men trying to get the young women drunk and into her pants. It’s not uncommon in the states for worried fathers to grill poor bachelors with perfectly honest intentions as potential rapists. This runs counter to the old tradition of treating young men who dared to come courting with respect.
This is no surprise considering that the sexual revolution and pop culture of the last 40 years has been obsessed with the notion of relationship free sex and hookups. Women who are ashamed of the notion of being viewed as hookers on a traditional date will argue that there’s no guarantee that she’ll have sex with a dinner chump anyway and they’re right: Women will sleep with men they like for free and commonly do. Men who go out on dinner dates to get laid are fools. If they go out on such dates in the hopes of getting a relationship, they are also fools since such as Marc points out, building a relationship based upon a display of wealth largely attracts golddiggers anyway. What works? I think traditional picnic lunches in a nice safe public park is fair WITH the provision that if she’s interested, she’ll pick up the second date in a like manner.