Comments on: Her Double-D’s Can Bankrupt You http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/04/13/her-double-ds-can-bankrupt-you/ Men's Rights Activism, MRA Politics, Analysis, Commentary and Global News Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:02:46 -1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: PolishKnight http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/04/13/her-double-ds-can-bankrupt-you/comment-page-1/#comment-11161 PolishKnight Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:51:40 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/04/13/her-double-d%e2%80%99s-can-bankrupt-you/#comment-11161 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. 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.

]]>