Activism Change

Hot or Not (again)

Question:

On 15/11/04 5:36 pm, in article Xns95A2C67B2A763er8o3@localhost, "Heartless Pig" <heartl…@pig.com> wrote: > jimsummer…@aol.com (Jim Summers87) wrote in > news:20041115000114.09736.00000253@mb-m20.aol.com: >>> I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, and I think that people can >>> choose their own way… whatever makes them comfortable. I just think >>> that there’s comfort to be had in the old, familiar rituals… >>   This has got to be a TROLL > See what I mean? Women will die insisting they like the old-fashioned way, > romance and all. They will not admit they just want a rough bad boy > treating them like shit.

you are the most boring person alive

Response:

"Bernd Jendrissek" wrote > GoddessBaybee wrote: > The sexual counterpart would be a "nice guy" who acts all jerky and > horndoggish because he’s tired of involuntary celibacy and "nice guy" > isn’t working, so he’s trying something different, and Everyone Knows > ™ that nice guys don’t get laid. > Is it just the price one has to pay to find a mate – letting some / many > good people slip through the cracks?

To me we need to start to realise that people are usually not "good" or "bad" (labels often limit), but that sometimes people do good or bad (e.g. shallow) things. And even then, we are often misled by our own prejudices, values, attitudes and beliefs. The map is not the territory. – Michaela

Response:

RK <r…@houston.rr.com> pulled the needle out his vein long enough to rant thusly: news:iu2gp0hgobci94c9ekhfjfrikdcp658mlr@4ax.com: > nd for people who don’t like either … ?

http://www.epsilonminus.com/darquedungeon/

Response:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:58:15 -0800, Dolores – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<weaselpant…@sinmonkey.com> wrote: >I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, and I think that people can >choose their own way… whatever makes them comfortable. I just think >that there’s comfort to be had in the old, familiar rituals… that’s >why they evolved, to give couples a script to follow, some familiar >ground, until their comfort level with each other increases to a point >where they can pave their own way and make their own traditions. People >who aren’t sure what to do with themselves socially sometimes have an >easier time if they can follow that social "script". They may find they >want to reverse roles… but usually that’s not negotiated until after a >few dates anyway, and this social ritual is only functional for the >first few dates, and then, if they have formed a couple, they will start >making their own rituals. >Different cultures are a whole ‘nuther obstacle. Some of them are >familiar enough with the Western model of courtship to make it work in a >pinch, some are not. In that case, everyone has to improvise, which is >fine if you’re good at improvising. >Women who can’t cook should have no problem providing a nice meal. >Sliced cold meats and cheeses and bread, wine, ice cream for dessert, >for example. No cooking required. (I think this is also fun as a "date" >later in a comfortable, settled relationship, with a rented movie!) >Why would a fourth date (usually happens over a month after beginning to >date, unless you see each other more than once a week) in the home be >more dangerous than going somewhere, and being alone in the car with a >man?

It isn’t, so I wouldn’t recommend that, either! My suggestion for all daters (except those who already know each other) would be to take your own cars and arrive independently at each date until you’re sure you can trust each other. I suppose if you’re a good judge of character (if such a thing exists), this could happen early. I personally don’t trust myself to know if someone is trustworthy or not after only 3 meetings. >I would think it would be less so, because you would be in control >of your location. >The bottom line is, nobody should be forced into following the ritual,

No, but you did indicate that it’s some sort of warning sign if someone doesn’t want to follow it. Why? >but it sure can be handy to fall back on when you don’t know what to do >with yourself.

I guess. I just hate doing things just because they’re done. I like doing things because they make sense to *me*. It’s kind of ironic, actually, because I am so shy that I tend to follow others, yet, in my own mind, I have a rather strong aversion to this sort of thing. For example, I always get annoyed when I hear people recommending a certain type of clothing (casual/formal/semi-formal/etc.) for a particular event. It really irritates me. — RK

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 In article <cn9r4c$hq…@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net> ske <no.m…@spam.net> wrote: >Bernd Jendrissek wrote: >> I hope it is as easy to identify parasites as you claim. >It is as long as you don’t allow yourself to be "blinded" by love.

That’s like saying, "All you need to do to succeed in business is to make lots of money"?  That’s what love is – a genetically coded, mostly adaptive, mental illness that gets you thinking irrationally. >> Do you think "relationship books" (I’m thinking of _The Rules_, >> specifically) and ASF-type material distort behaviour?  I think so… >> people will often act "unnatural" in order to gain what they see as >> an advantage.  Specific example: a girl who’s read _The Rules_ (just >> for interest’s sake, have you?) may act all aloof ("Light and >> breezy") and "hard to get", behaving like she *assumes* the man wil >> pay, etc., even when that goes against her character.  She may >> "really" be one of those loving giver types. >Think about this logically for a second. If a person is willing to act >against their character just to win the affections of someone, would >you want to be with them? How long could they maintain that pretense >before you discovered the truth?

I meant… what if that pretense was *wrong*?  For example, okcupid.com says I’m "18% slut" (probably more due to girl-phobia than any character trait!), but Everyone Knows ™ that "all guys want easy sex".  Enter hypothetical woman who’s (very) interested in me, and her "true" self is my soul mate, the ideal mother of my demon spawn, etc. – except for one problem: she can’t read my mind so she guesses wrong and throws herself at me, thinking that "this is what guys want". So: do I NEXT her for not appearing to be what I want (something just a little more chaste), or do I probe more deeply to discover her "true" self? As for the willingness to act against character – no, I don’t necessarily see that as a black flag.  That’s just being smart – doing what you need to do to get what you want. It’s a folly, for sure, but a black mark against her character?  I doubt it. >> Is it just the price one has to pay to find a mate – letting some / >> many good people slip through the cracks? >Finding the mate is the easier part, the really hard work starts with >the relationship. Life does not get simpler when you are involved with >another person…

Is it possibly to have a ("healthy", "satisfying") relationship with any given person, provided one works hard enough at it? Why is being *in* a relationship necessarily such hard work?  I’ve heard people (married, or in LTR with history) claim the opposite – that when it’s "right" it’s easy. >> Barring rape, the nuclear weapon for deterring booty call type men is >> to WUMTHS.  If *anonymous* honey is all they want, they’ll soon learn >> to look elsewhere for a cheaper bargain. >Or at least wait a "reasonable" period of time before engaging in >bedroom antics. If the person is willing to work through issues with >you when they are not having their physical desires gratified, chances >are good that they want you for more than sex.

I don’t count waiting for marriage as an "issue"!  It’s a very smart strategy for women to adopt, IMHO.  I wish more did.  Well, as you say, at least a "reasonable" period.  "Reasonable" being defined as that length of time that exceeds by two standard deviations the time the one-thing-only guys are prepared to expend on a seduction. It’s a game of chicken.  Who blinks first?  By waiting until marriage, the woman *forces* at least a draw.  Anything less leaves her exposed, blinking first. – — Seen in comp.lang.c: > cody wrote: >> The problem is that i believe that my assertions are correct. > Yes, that is a problem.

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQFBmJst/FmLrNfLpjMRAuX1AJ91cUYDkJVJmRFOJrf/opZbKZzqEACfaj73 1PC9RuPg5qdsRoRTki1v7dU= =2lIp —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 In article <X82dncf0a5jJ9QXcRVn…@comcast.com> Dolores <weaselpant…@sinmonkey.com> wrote: >Good lord, I’m still awake. Why? Why do I lack the common sense to go >to bed at a decent hour?

Because us shy misogynists are such a captivatingly interesting case study, that’s why! >I think that books like "The Rules" do an enormous disservice to men >and to women, pretty much for the reasons you stated.

IMHO many women also damage their chances of finding a good man by completely missing the point of _The Rules_ (and similar books, no doubt). >2.  What you see is what you get. Don’t try to change people, it >doesn’t work.

It’s hard to "let go" of one’s expectations and just leave people enough time and opportunity to show their hands, show their true colours.  All this "changing them" just ends you up showing *your* hand, leaving you vulnerable to deception.  Like if a woman says on the first date, "I don’t sleep with men on the first three dates", she’s just told him how to get into her pants on date #4: pull the "devout Christian" act and mention "respect for women" and "moral values" often. >3. An adult should have a job, a home, an education, and >transportation.  If they lack any of these, think very carefully before >dating them.

"Think very carefully" – good advice.  Good idea to do it anyway.  That said, these "requirements" may be culturally variable.  Ferinstance, it’s reasonably common here in South Africa for people to stay with their parents for quite some time, and not just "losers".  Well-paid lawyers, too, as I found out at a recent high school reunion. >What does "WUMTHS" mean?

Waiting Until Marriage To Have Sex. >PS I have said disparaging things about barflies. I feel like I should >explain that I don’t think that women/men who go to bars are nasty, >just that they’re not the best place to meet people because >damaged/dangerous/desperate people do tend to hang out in bars hoping >to meet someone to screw.

I understood that.  It’s all part of a cost/benefit analysis. Generalisations *are* useful much of the time.  At least when applied wisely.  The use of qualifiers ("tend to", "lots of", "your odds", etc.) helps make them rational. – — "IBM has more patent litigation lawyers than SCO has employees." – unknown —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQFBmHVP/FmLrNfLpjMRAn9TAJ0cjSJ2pMtqw/kOwK14J156AU5cPACfSBAU dcDRY4/vLHAuqnXviGM/jZg= =sKZX —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Bernd Jendrissek wrote: > —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– > Hash: SHA1 > In article <cn99dp0…@drn.newsguy.com> GoddessBaybee > <goddessbay…@yahoo.com> wrote: >>In article <cn8gns$sm…@penguin.wetton.example.org>, Bernd Jendrissek >>says… >>>How does one avoid cheaters in this scheme of dating ritual?  I.e., >>>how does a guy avoid the girl who just takes her mark for the free >>>meals "because he deserves being taken advantage of for being so >>>stupid to pay my way" or the guy who "puts out" (paying for dates 1-3) >>>with the intention of "scoring" on date #3, only to disappear? >>You can’t necessarily avoid these types, but it doesn’t take months of >>dating for a guy to realize that a girl is primarily interested in >>"free stuff".  Also is doesn’t take long for a woman to realize a guy >>is just interested in "scoring".  Just move on if this happens, there >>are better people out there. > I hope it is as easy to identify parasites as you claim.

It is as long as you don’t allow yourself to be "blinded" by love. It is relatively easy to identify people that rate money and materialism over more important things, applying that to a relationship is not that much harder. > Do you think "relationship books" (I’m thinking of _The Rules_, > specifically) and ASF-type material distort behaviour?  I think so… > people will often act "unnatural" in order to gain what they see as an > advantage.  Specific example: a girl who’s read _The Rules_ (just for > interest’s sake, have you?) may act all aloof ("Light and breezy") and > "hard to get", behaving like she *assumes* the man wil pay, etc., even > when that goes against her character.  She may "really" be one of those > loving giver types.

Think about this logically for a second. If a person is willing to act against their character just to win the affections of someone, would you want to be with them? How long could they maintain that pretense before you discovered the truth? > The sexual counterpart would be a "nice guy" who acts all jerky and > horndoggish because he’s tired of involuntary celibacy and "nice guy" > isn’t working, so he’s trying something different, and Everyone Knows > ™ that nice guys don’t get laid. > Is it just the price one has to pay to find a mate – letting some / many > good people slip through the cracks?

Finding the mate is the easier part, the really hard work starts with the relationship. Life does not get simpler when you are involved with another person… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>This "old-fashioned" way of doing things worked… in the old days. >>>Now, post sexual revolution, "old-fashioned" seems to be a bit of a >>>slur, in the eyes of enough to cause a problem for those of us who >>>think some things were okay back then. >>This so called "old-fashioned" way of doing things has worked pretty >>well for me. > Cool. >>Personally, I honestly don’t think it’s "old-fashioned" for a guy to >>pay for the early dates, or for a woman to cook for a guy on dates, > It’s only "old-fashioned" in that some feminazi factions (being careful > to distinguish that subset from the "feminism" whole, some of which I > believe holds great virtue) deem these dating rituals "oppressive" and > otherwise un-PC. > Why "old-fashioned" should necessarily be a slur is another matter.  I > think Jim Summers87 has already taken up the issue about a year ago. >>but I suppose this aint the typical route someone looking for a booty >>call would take. Since I’ve always been interested in avoiding booty >>call type men, this never bothered me. > Barring rape, the nuclear weapon for deterring booty call type men is to > WUMTHS.  If *anonymous* honey is all they want, they’ll soon learn to > look elsewhere for a cheaper bargain.

Or at least wait a "reasonable" period of time before engaging in bedroom antics. If the person is willing to work through issues with you when they are not having their physical desires gratified, chances are good that they want you for more than sex.

Response:

Good lord, I’m still awake. Why? Why do I lack the common sense to go to bed at a decent hour? I think that books like "The Rules" do an enormous disservice to men and to women, pretty much for the reasons you stated. I like my dad’s "Rules" better: 1. Own your own home, in your own name, and have your own money. 2. What you see is what you get. Don’t try to change people, it doesn’t work. 3. An adult should have a job, a home, an education, and transportation. If they lack any of these, think very carefully before dating them. What does "WUMTHS" mean? PS I have said disparaging things about barflies. I feel like I should explain that I don’t think that women/men who go to bars are nasty, just that they’re not the best place to meet people because damaged/dangerous/desperate people do tend to hang out in bars hoping to meet someone to screw. Lots of perfectly normal or at least only moderately neurotic people also go to bars for fun, but by looking for sex in bars you’ve upped your odds of hooking up with someone who is not going to be good for you, becase they don’t know how to be good for themselves. I love your tagline. It’s AWESOME. -=Lola – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Bernd Jendrissek wrote: > I hope it is as easy to identify parasites as you claim. > Do you think "relationship books" (I’m thinking of _The Rules_, > specifically) and ASF-type material distort behaviour?  I think so… > people will often act "unnatural" in order to gain what they see as an > advantage.  Specific example: a girl who’s read _The Rules_ (just for > interest’s sake, have you?) may act all aloof ("Light and breezy") and > "hard to get", behaving like she *assumes* the man wil pay, etc., even > when that goes against her character.  She may "really" be one of those > loving giver types. > The sexual counterpart would be a "nice guy" who acts all jerky and > horndoggish because he’s tired of involuntary celibacy and "nice guy" > isn’t working, so he’s trying something different, and Everyone Knows > ™ that nice guys don’t get laid. > Is it just the price one has to pay to find a mate – letting some / many > good people slip through the cracks? > I’ve generally found that the fastest way to get the right answer on the net > is to confidently assert the answer you believe to be right; those who know > will immediately correct you, while if you just ask, often no answers arrive. > All it requires is a willingness to look bad on occasion. >                                                - Joe Buck on g…@gcc.gnu.org > —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– > Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > iD8DBQFBmGKu/FmLrNfLpjMRAtAsAJ9mdlSmqjnV8B8cfBwblg5mE12ACACaAneC > JmBfn9L0V3/1qM13+VPqOuw= > =3PWI > —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

>I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, and I think that people can >choose their own way… whatever makes them comfortable. I just think >that there’s comfort to be had in the old, familiar rituals…

  This has got to be a TROLL

Response:

Yeah, but on a night out he also (usually) has to do the driving, and possibly opening doors and pulling out chairs if she’s OK with the chivalrous stuff! Also, they wouldn’t start eating in until the fourth date or so… and that means he would have already paid for several meals. Why not put in a little elbow grease in return, to show him his courtship effort is appreciated? If it’s gotten to the "eating in" phase, obviously they must like each other a lot, so showing each other signs of appreciation is normal and to be hoped for. -=Lola – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -RK wrote: > Hey … *wait* a minute … I just noticed something. You say she > should spend as much as he would spend on a date … so how is this > equal? They spend the same amount, but she does a bunch of work on top > of that! > I would suggest that anyone who wants to go this route spend less, but > reciprocate through the meal planning/cooking effort itself. > — RK

Response:

Delores: >>You’re completely right; it only works if *both* people are on board >>with it. Women should not use a man for free meals if she doesn’t enjoy >>his company enough to have him over for dinner in exchange, and pursue >>the relationship.

JimSummers: >  Blah, Blah, Blah…God you are BORING…

delores is a riddle. she is loquacious, yet soothing and entertaining as well. i haven’t quite figured out whether she’s informative or not – and strangely don’t care. mitznegari is optimistic about this one. ) – m i t z –

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 In article <cn99dp0…@drn.newsguy.com> GoddessBaybee <goddessbay…@yahoo.com> wrote: >In article <cn8gns$sm…@penguin.wetton.example.org>, Bernd Jendrissek >says… >>How does one avoid cheaters in this scheme of dating ritual?  I.e., >>how does a guy avoid the girl who just takes her mark for the free >>meals "because he deserves being taken advantage of for being so >>stupid to pay my way" or the guy who "puts out" (paying for dates 1-3) >>with the intention of "scoring" on date #3, only to disappear? >You can’t necessarily avoid these types, but it doesn’t take months of >dating for a guy to realize that a girl is primarily interested in >"free stuff".  Also is doesn’t take long for a woman to realize a guy >is just interested in "scoring".  Just move on if this happens, there >are better people out there.

I hope it is as easy to identify parasites as you claim. Do you think "relationship books" (I’m thinking of _The Rules_, specifically) and ASF-type material distort behaviour?  I think so… people will often act "unnatural" in order to gain what they see as an advantage.  Specific example: a girl who’s read _The Rules_ (just for interest’s sake, have you?) may act all aloof ("Light and breezy") and "hard to get", behaving like she *assumes* the man wil pay, etc., even when that goes against her character.  She may "really" be one of those loving giver types. The sexual counterpart would be a "nice guy" who acts all jerky and horndoggish because he’s tired of involuntary celibacy and "nice guy" isn’t working, so he’s trying something different, and Everyone Knows ™ that nice guys don’t get laid. Is it just the price one has to pay to find a mate – letting some / many good people slip through the cracks? >>This "old-fashioned" way of doing things worked… in the old days. >>Now, post sexual revolution, "old-fashioned" seems to be a bit of a >>slur, in the eyes of enough to cause a problem for those of us who >>think some things were okay back then. >This so called "old-fashioned" way of doing things has worked pretty >well for me.

Cool. >Personally, I honestly don’t think it’s "old-fashioned" for a guy to >pay for the early dates, or for a woman to cook for a guy on dates,

It’s only "old-fashioned" in that some feminazi factions (being careful to distinguish that subset from the "feminism" whole, some of which I believe holds great virtue) deem these dating rituals "oppressive" and otherwise un-PC. Why "old-fashioned" should necessarily be a slur is another matter.  I think Jim Summers87 has already taken up the issue about a year ago. >but I suppose this aint the typical route someone looking for a booty >call would take. Since I’ve always been interested in avoiding booty >call type men, this never bothered me.

Barring rape, the nuclear weapon for deterring booty call type men is to WUMTHS.  If *anonymous* honey is all they want, they’ll soon learn to look elsewhere for a cheaper bargain. – — I’ve generally found that the fastest way to get the right answer on the net is to confidently assert the answer you believe to be right; those who know will immediately correct you, while if you just ask, often no answers arrive. All it requires is a willingness to look bad on occasion.                                                - Joe Buck on g…@gcc.gnu.org —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQFBmGKu/FmLrNfLpjMRAtAsAJ9mdlSmqjnV8B8cfBwblg5mE12ACACaAneC JmBfn9L0V3/1qM13+VPqOuw= =3PWI —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:55:24 +0000 (UTC), "Bernd Jendrissek" <ber…@prism.co.za> wrote: >This "old-fashioned" way of doing things worked… in the old days. >Now, post sexual revolution, "old-fashioned" seems to be a bit of a >slur, in the eyes of enough to cause a problem for those of us who think >some things were okay back then.

Old-fashioned way? For fuck’s sake, her "traditional courtship rituals" are much less than a hundred years old and for the most part, practiced only by westerners.

Response:

You’re completely right; it only works if *both* people are on board with it. Women should not use a man for free meals if she doesn’t enjoy his company enough to have him over for dinner in exchange, and pursue the relationship. And in general, whoever does the asking, for the first date, should do the paying as well, so if a woman is going to go non-traditional and approach the man for a first date, she should either plan to provide food and entertainment. It’s not the only workable system, but when it does work, it works well. You just have to hope that you’re going out with a good, compatible, honest person. Which is always a crapshoot anyway. -=Lola – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Bernd Jendrissek wrote: > That’s all good stuff. > One question: > How does one avoid cheaters in this scheme of dating ritual?  I.e., how > does a guy avoid the girl who just takes her mark for the free meals > "because he deserves being taken advantage of for being so stupid to pay > my way" or the guy who "puts out" (paying for dates 1-3) with the > intention of "scoring" on date #3, only to disappear? > This "old-fashioned" way of doing things worked… in the old days. > Now, post sexual revolution, "old-fashioned" seems to be a bit of a > slur, in the eyes of enough to cause a problem for those of us who think > some things were okay back then.

Response:

>You’re completely right; it only works if *both* people are on board >with it. Women should not use a man for free meals if she doesn’t enjoy >his company enough to have him over for dinner in exchange, and pursue >the relationship.

  Blah, Blah, Blah…God you are BORING…you make Michaela look like a pulitzer prize winner……

Response:

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, and I think that people can choose their own way… whatever makes them comfortable. I just think that there’s comfort to be had in the old, familiar rituals… that’s why they evolved, to give couples a script to follow, some familiar ground, until their comfort level with each other increases to a point where they can pave their own way and make their own traditions. People who aren’t sure what to do with themselves socially sometimes have an easier time if they can follow that social "script". They may find they want to reverse roles… but usually that’s not negotiated until after a few dates anyway, and this social ritual is only functional for the first few dates, and then, if they have formed a couple, they will start making their own rituals. Different cultures are a whole ‘nuther obstacle. Some of them are familiar enough with the Western model of courtship to make it work in a pinch, some are not. In that case, everyone has to improvise, which is fine if you’re good at improvising. Women who can’t cook should have no problem providing a nice meal. Sliced cold meats and cheeses and bread, wine, ice cream for dessert, for example. No cooking required. (I think this is also fun as a "date" later in a comfortable, settled relationship, with a rented movie!) Why would a fourth date (usually happens over a month after beginning to date, unless you see each other more than once a week) in the home be more dangerous than going somewhere, and being alone in the car with a man? I would think it would be less so, because you would be in control of your location. The bottom line is, nobody should be forced into following the ritual, but it sure can be handy to fall back on when you don’t know what to do with yourself. -=Lola – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -RK wrote: > I’m not much for cultural rituals myself. In fact, I’m starting to > have less and less respect for the whole concept of "culture" > altogether. "Culture" == "doing things the way other people have done > them because that’s how other people have done them". Blech. It’s > especially annoying when you have to deal with people from multiple > cultures, and your own ideas don’t match those of either one of those > cultures. > But I digress … time to get back to what you’re actually talking > about. > If the method you suggest works for a particular couple, that’s great. > But why should anyone behave in a particular way just because of > gender? Are women obligated to learn how to cook, so they can do their > part in this "ritual"? What about men who are earning less than their > dates — do they *have* to be the "provider"? What if the woman is > less "nurturing" then the guy — does that mean there’s something > wrong with both of them? > I think these things have to be determined on an individual basis. So > long as there’s equality in the relationship, it doesn’t matter *how* > the equality is achieved — *that* is for each individual couple to > decide. > One last comment — Your approach would require a date at home rather > early in the process and that, IMO, is dangerous. I don’t think it’s a > good idea to be alone with a date for at least a couple of months > (unless you already knew each other before dating). (Or were you > thinking other people would be in the home at the same time?) > — RK

Response:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:40:13 -0800, Dolores – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<weaselpant…@sinmonkey.com> wrote: >She was probably a guy anyway, or underage. That’s the most retarded >thing I’ve ever heard. >I think that man should pay for meals out during the "courtship" phase. >It’s a cultural ritual, and sticking with familiar cultural rituals is >good for establishing a baseline relationship. However, after the third >date or so, the woman should start reciprocating (NO, not like that!) by >paying for and preparing delicious meals at home. We’re pretty simple >creatures; what this ritualistic behavior does is A: the man is >symbolically establishing himself as a "provider", B: the woman is >symbolically establishing herself as a "nurturer", and C: by trading off >eating out and cooking in, this establishes reciprocity in the >relationship. >When cooking in, the woman should take care to spend at least as much as >the average night out with dinner and a movie. The man may never know >the meal cost $60… they usually don’t know, and that’s not important. >What’s important is spending the money to make it fabulous.

Hey … *wait* a minute … I just noticed something. You say she should spend as much as he would spend on a date … so how is this equal? They spend the same amount, but she does a bunch of work on top of that! I would suggest that anyone who wants to go this route spend less, but reciprocate through the meal planning/cooking effort itself. — RK

Response:

In article <cn8gns$sm…@penguin.wetton.example.org>, Bernd Jendrissek says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– >Hash: SHA1 >In article <xZSdnZRjLK8LKQrcRVn…@comcast.com> Dolores ><weaselpant…@sinmonkey.com> wrote: >>I think that man should pay for meals out during the "courtship" phase. >>It’s a cultural ritual, and sticking with familiar cultural rituals is >>good for establishing a baseline relationship. However, after the third >>date or so, the woman should start reciprocating (NO, not like that!) >>by paying for and preparing delicious meals at home. We’re pretty >>simple creatures; what this ritualistic behavior does is A: the man is >>symbolically establishing himself as a "provider", B: the woman is >>symbolically establishing herself as a "nurturer", and C: by trading >>off eating out and cooking in, this establishes reciprocity in the >>relationship. >That’s all good stuff. >One question: >How does one avoid cheaters in this scheme of dating ritual?  I.e., how >does a guy avoid the girl who just takes her mark for the free meals >"because he deserves being taken advantage of for being so stupid to pay >my way" or the guy who "puts out" (paying for dates 1-3) with the >intention of "scoring" on date #3, only to disappear?

You can’t necessarily avoid these types, but it doesn’t take months of dating for a guy to realize that a girl is primarily interested in "free stuff".  Also is doesn’t take long for a woman to realize a guy is just interested in "scoring".  Just move on if this happens, there are better people out there. >This "old-fashioned" way of doing things worked… in the old days. >Now, post sexual revolution, "old-fashioned" seems to be a bit of a >slur, in the eyes of enough to cause a problem for those of us who think >some things were okay back then.

This so called "old-fashioned" way of doing things has worked pretty well for me.  Personally, I honestly don’t think it’s "old-fashioned" for a guy to pay for the early dates, or for a woman to cook for a guy on dates, but I suppose this aint the typical route someone looking for a booty call would take. Since I’ve always been interested in avoiding booty call type men, this never bothered me. Baybee

Response:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:55:24 +0000 (UTC), "Bernd Jendrissek" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<ber…@prism.co.za> wrote: >—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– >Hash: SHA1 >In article <xZSdnZRjLK8LKQrcRVn…@comcast.com> Dolores ><weaselpant…@sinmonkey.com> wrote: >>I think that man should pay for meals out during the "courtship" phase. >>It’s a cultural ritual, and sticking with familiar cultural rituals is >>good for establishing a baseline relationship. However, after the third >>date or so, the woman should start reciprocating (NO, not like that!) >>by paying for and preparing delicious meals at home. We’re pretty >>simple creatures; what this ritualistic behavior does is A: the man is >>symbolically establishing himself as a "provider", B: the woman is >>symbolically establishing herself as a "nurturer", and C: by trading >>off eating out and cooking in, this establishes reciprocity in the >>relationship. >That’s all good stuff. >One question: >How does one avoid cheaters in this scheme of dating ritual?  I.e., how >does a guy avoid the girl who just takes her mark for the free meals >"because he deserves being taken advantage of for being so stupid to pay >my way" or the guy who "puts out" (paying for dates 1-3) with the >intention of "scoring" on date #3, only to disappear? >This "old-fashioned" way of doing things worked… in the old days.

It probably didn’t work so well for those who didn’t like that way. See, for those who liked doing things in the more "modern" way, those days were tough, and for those who like things the "old-fashioned" way, these days are tough. And for people who don’t like either … ? >Now, post sexual revolution, "old-fashioned" seems to be a bit of a >slur, in the eyes of enough to cause a problem for those of us who think >some things were okay back then.

– RK

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 In article <xZSdnZRjLK8LKQrcRVn…@comcast.com> Dolores <weaselpant…@sinmonkey.com> wrote: >I think that man should pay for meals out during the "courtship" phase. >It’s a cultural ritual, and sticking with familiar cultural rituals is >good for establishing a baseline relationship. However, after the third >date or so, the woman should start reciprocating (NO, not like that!) >by paying for and preparing delicious meals at home. We’re pretty >simple creatures; what this ritualistic behavior does is A: the man is >symbolically establishing himself as a "provider", B: the woman is >symbolically establishing herself as a "nurturer", and C: by trading >off eating out and cooking in, this establishes reciprocity in the >relationship.

That’s all good stuff. One question: How does one avoid cheaters in this scheme of dating ritual?  I.e., how does a guy avoid the girl who just takes her mark for the free meals "because he deserves being taken advantage of for being so stupid to pay my way" or the guy who "puts out" (paying for dates 1-3) with the intention of "scoring" on date #3, only to disappear? This "old-fashioned" way of doing things worked… in the old days. Now, post sexual revolution, "old-fashioned" seems to be a bit of a slur, in the eyes of enough to cause a problem for those of us who think some things were okay back then. – — "IBM has more patent litigation lawyers than SCO has employees." – unknown —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQFBl8Rp/FmLrNfLpjMRAqi7AJwOWIUOXeBzzRGs3jPir3cyRVvQoQCfS+Lq Y3LirLEcPA0rKxUfyCchX64= =gste —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:40:13 -0800, Dolores – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<weaselpant…@sinmonkey.com> wrote: >She was probably a guy anyway, or underage. That’s the most retarded >thing I’ve ever heard. >I think that man should pay for meals out during the "courtship" phase. >It’s a cultural ritual, and sticking with familiar cultural rituals is >good for establishing a baseline relationship. However, after the third >date or so, the woman should start reciprocating (NO, not like that!) by >paying for and preparing delicious meals at home. We’re pretty simple >creatures; what this ritualistic behavior does is A: the man is >symbolically establishing himself as a "provider", B: the woman is >symbolically establishing herself as a "nurturer", and C: by trading off >eating out and cooking in, this establishes reciprocity in the >relationship. >When cooking in, the woman should take care to spend at least as much as >the average night out with dinner and a movie. The man may never know >the meal cost $60… they usually don’t know, and that’s not important. >What’s important is spending the money to make it fabulous. >I think there is a lot to be said about traditional courtship rituals. >Beware the woman who rails against them on a feminist ground, and the >man who claims they’re unfair. (They are unfair if there’s no >reciprocity, but that’s a good sign that the relationship wouldn’t work >anyway because one’s a "giver" and the other is a "taker".) >Most of this is beside the point as far as your "Hot or Not" question, I >just got off on a tangent.

I’m not much for cultural rituals myself. In fact, I’m starting to have less and less respect for the whole concept of "culture" altogether. "Culture" == "doing things the way other people have done them because that’s how other people have done them". Blech. It’s especially annoying when you have to deal with people from multiple cultures, and your own ideas don’t match those of either one of those cultures. But I digress … time to get back to what you’re actually talking about. If the method you suggest works for a particular couple, that’s great. But why should anyone behave in a particular way just because of gender? Are women obligated to learn how to cook, so they can do their part in this "ritual"? What about men who are earning less than their dates — do they *have* to be the "provider"? What if the woman is less "nurturing" then the guy — does that mean there’s something wrong with both of them? I think these things have to be determined on an individual basis. So long as there’s equality in the relationship, it doesn’t matter *how* the equality is achieved — *that* is for each individual couple to decide. One last comment — Your approach would require a date at home rather early in the process and that, IMO, is dangerous. I don’t think it’s a good idea to be alone with a date for at least a couple of months (unless you already knew each other before dating). (Or were you thinking other people would be in the home at the same time?) — RK

Response:

There is a lot of debate here as to whether or not Hot or Not is a good method of letting someone else judge if you are good looking or not.  I was wondering if anyone here had put themselves down in the "meet me" section. (this was just to see whether any women would reply – I am male BTW) I did, and whilst I wasn’t exactly inundated with replies (I tried replying yes to quite a few but got no reply)I was pleasantly suprised with the responses. I even got one from a Britney Spears lookalike – that was great!  But it struck me that this never happens to me IRL and I started to get a bit paranoid that this was a wind up of some sort (I have heard about such things happening) and I am sure that you are all aware that there are people out there who would do such a thing just to get a kick out of it.  Still, my fault for not trying, I guess. Has anyone any experience with this "meet me" option?  Do you think that this is a good idea or not? Many thank Darcy

Response:

> Has anyone any experience with this "meet me" option?  Do you think > that this is a good idea or not?

I’ve tried and I got a reply from one girl but we were both non paying members.  She sent me a prefab message that was something like this.  "I am interested but I am not a paying member and I think it is the man who should pay."  I didn’t pay.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -dtt042…@yahoo.co.uk (Darcy Todd) wrote in message <news:9f2e4511.0411130500.5f571b48@posting.google.com>… > There is a lot of debate here as to whether or not Hot or Not is a > good method of letting someone else judge if you are good looking or > not.  I was wondering if anyone here had put themselves down in the > "meet me" section. (this was just to see whether any women would reply > – I am male BTW) > I did, and whilst I wasn’t exactly inundated with replies (I tried > replying yes to quite a few but got no reply)I was pleasantly suprised > with the responses. I even got one from a Britney Spears lookalike – > that was great!  But it struck me that this never happens to me IRL > and I started to get a bit paranoid that this was a wind up of some > sort (I have heard about such things happening) and I am sure that you > are all aware that there are people out there who would do such a > thing just to get a kick out of it.  Still, my fault for not trying, I > guess. > Has anyone any experience with this "meet me" option?  Do you think > that this is a good idea or not? > Many thank > Darcy

I’ve used it before. I think my score was around 6.0 before I took my picture down. I was a paying member, so I could send letters back and forth. I mostly initiated the matches and got several replies from a variety of women. I even had a few very good looking women initiate matches with me, and one of them lead to a short (and fun) relationship with a beautiful woman. I’d recommend at least trying it out. If you’re like me and are not particularly attractive, I’d recommend putting some effort into making your picture decent and your keywords and description unique and interesting. That helps a lot.

Response:

She was probably a guy anyway, or underage. That’s the most retarded thing I’ve ever heard. I think that man should pay for meals out during the "courtship" phase. It’s a cultural ritual, and sticking with familiar cultural rituals is good for establishing a baseline relationship. However, after the third date or so, the woman should start reciprocating (NO, not like that!) by paying for and preparing delicious meals at home. We’re pretty simple creatures; what this ritualistic behavior does is A: the man is symbolically establishing himself as a "provider", B: the woman is symbolically establishing herself as a "nurturer", and C: by trading off eating out and cooking in, this establishes reciprocity in the relationship. When cooking in, the woman should take care to spend at least as much as the average night out with dinner and a movie. The man may never know the meal cost $60… they usually don’t know, and that’s not important. What’s important is spending the money to make it fabulous. I think there is a lot to be said about traditional courtship rituals. Beware the woman who rails against them on a feminist ground, and the man who claims they’re unfair. (They are unfair if there’s no reciprocity, but that’s a good sign that the relationship wouldn’t work anyway because one’s a "giver" and the other is a "taker".) Most of this is beside the point as far as your "Hot or Not" question, I just got off on a tangent. -=Lola – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Pumpkinhead wrote: >>Has anyone any experience with this "meet me" option?  Do you think >>that this is a good idea or not? > I’ve tried and I got a reply from one girl but we were both non paying > members.  She sent me a prefab message that was something like this.  "I am > interested but I am not a paying member and I think it is the man who should > pay."  I didn’t pay.

Response:

Filed under: Feminism

Related Posts

• Why Feminism Is A JOKE
• Would this be Curio? Re: Note to AAR
• OT - Usenet cartoon
• Kook-file update for Thursday, Nov. 14, 2002
• Growing apart
• Cunninglingus
• "Submit Gracefully"
• Founding communities
• More Women on Corporate Boards!
• Crochet--Newbie needs help!!