SamSneed36 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by dks1240 ooh i hope i never go on a date with a guy like this :mad: everytime ive gone on a date with a guy i've offered to split the bill or at the very least pick up the tip. isn't that the norm for girls to do? ...hmm then again i prefer a beer over 600 dollar liquor and a bar over a club so i dont think i compare to these 'nyc girls' this guy is refering to. and then again im not 21 yet so i havent had to worry about horribly expensive drink bills...yet You sound like a quality girl, unfortunatly the world is full of girls and people not so top shelf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Southernstar, traveling wise man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 In all the years I've dated, I can honestly say I've not had one problem when it comes to the paying thing. Generally on the first date I have found there's a bit of an understanding that things are on equal ground, as in the bills. Now that doesn't mean I don't do all the gentleman stuff and will buy a drink or 2 as well as the night progresses. I either just do it, ( if the date is going well), or even ask if I'm not sure how she takes that kind of thing. Any dates after that mind you......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 SouthernSTar Great post. BTW, isn't it embarrassing that they had never considered something like that? Is it that many women are so brainwashed into believing they are literally supposed to have it all AND men are supposed to still act like gentleman courters from a more 'civilized age' that they really don't THINK outside of their own little perspectives? That's the kind of thinking I do on a normal basis. How the hell did that escape their scrutiny? It's going to get me flamed, but a hell of a lot of women don't really seem capable of operating on that level, esecially if it requires an appreciation for and constant struggle with the self to transcend the narrow confines of that perspective. Another thing I'd add is that the world has changed. Women now compose MORE THAN half of the college population. While many fields are still male-dominated, women do have half the opportunities(or more) now. Yet their expectations have not changed to match the changing world. If women are no longer tied to the home and bring in their own income, why should men pay for them(other than when a couple pay back and forth for each other or as a gift?) If women are now high-powered businesspeople or lawyers or doctors, why do they then expect men who are now no longer masters of the workplace to achieve MORE than they have? Yet men are told to lower their expectations for a woman's physical beauty. And it'd be one thing if women were ONLY after the wealth/prestige of a man, but they still prefer him to be handsome too. The standards have not changed, yet men are supposed to just take whatever life gives them. I make the women pay their share, I don't have the loot to pay for them and myself on a consistent basis. The idea that I'm going to be a free dinner is swiftly put to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dks1240 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 so is it fair then for a girl to honestly turn down a date because she just flat out cant afford it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dks1240 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin SouthernSTar Great post. Another thing I'd add is that the world has changed. Women now compose MORE THAN half of the college population. While many fields are still male-dominated, women do have half the opportunities(or more) now. Yet their expectations have not changed to match the changing world. If women are no longer tied to the home and bring in their own income, why should men pay for them(other than when a couple pay back and forth for each other or as a gift?) If women are no high-powered businesspeople or lawyers or doctors, why do they then expect men who are now no longer masters of the workplace to achieve MORE than they have? Yet men are told to lower their expectations for a woman's physical beauty. And it'd be one thing if women were ONLY after the wealth/prestige of a man, but they still prefer him to be handsome too. The standards have not changed, yet men are supposed to just take whatever life gives them. I make the women pay their share, I don't have the loot to pay for them and myself on a consistent basis. The idea that I'm going to be a free dinner is swiftly put to death. nicely said. i have a hand full of girlfriends that scream and shout for women's rights and equality but they b!tch and moan if a guy doesnt treat them like they are freakin royality. ooh it gets real old real fast and if i try to say anything on the matter i get chewed out because im "suppose to be on their side." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by dks1240 so is it fair then for a girl to honestly turn down a date because she just flat out cant afford it? So long as she states this and gives the guy a chance to pay. But she has to be doing it honestly and giving the guy a real chance on the date. dks What you're running into are spoiled Western women, who've been told a great lie about their 'oppression' and been sold a bill of good that isn't ABOUT EQUALITY but is about ELEVATING the feminine and DENIGRATING the masculine to the point where women expect every change that happens in society to FAVOR them rather than actually BALANCE in favor of something resembling equality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamSneed36 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by dks1240 so is it fair then for a girl to honestly turn down a date because she just flat out cant afford it? perhaps suggest something cheaper, like a walk or some free event or something. A date doesnt have to be an expensive dinner or 300 dollar shots at a bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by dks1240 so is it fair then for a girl to honestly turn down a date because she just flat out cant afford it? What if the guy can't afford it, hypothetically, of course? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidenreich Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by Westbrook36 What if the guy can't afford it, hypothetically, of course? Then of course she'd turn down THAT date....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 My wife bought ME dinner on our first date.:laugh: We went to a place called Goin' Nuts in Salisbury. We spilt appetisers for dinner. Wings and fries, Cheese Crock, and Nachos. I remember it like it was yesterday. And no, I did not get lucky on our first date.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dks1240 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 im glad to know im not betraying 'my kind' by thinking this way :laugh: this is some quality advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Cost of a date.... Gas for the car --- $15.00 Dinner -------------- $50.00 Movie --------------- $18.00 Popcorn, Drink ---- $10.00 ________________________ Total night on the town............ $93.00 Believe me, that is a very realistic cost for a date in Salisbury. Without alcohol. Add $30.00 plus if we start drinking. That is a lot of money. Especially if you are not good at holding down a steady girlfriend / boyfriend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernStar Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by dks1240 so is it fair then for a girl to honestly turn down a date because she just flat out cant afford it? Absolutely. Why doesn't she just come right out and say that she is "strapped for cash at the present time" and suggest that they go somewhere less expensive? 99% of men would LOVE THEM for doing it! If a women wanted to "endear herself" to a man, she could do just that.(Maytbe suggest that they rent a movie and watch it at home...or something along those lines). Here is another "angle". The girl could ASK THE GUY OUT. That way, she could decide where to go (and how much to spend) without revealing her finances to the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernStar Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Here is another "encounter" that I had: A woman and I were dicussing PMS (Pre-Menstrual Syndrome). The lady informed me that this was a "hormonal thing" and that women had no control over it. That they were basically "authorized" to be bit**** at that time and thast men would just lear to have to accept it because (as she put it) her "hormones were raging". I asked her if men should be held responsible for rape. She said yes, of course. I told her that I disagreed and then I informed her that it was only the mans "hormones raging". And that (in most cases), it was the woman's provacative dressing and actions that caused the mans hormones to rage. That if she had not dressed and acted this way (to taunt and tantalise men) that the man could have controlled himself. That if she had not worn the short dress, see-thru blouse, and high heels, worn the sexy makeup and great smelling perfume, designed with peripherones (or whatever you call them) that are scientiffically manufactured to bring out the animal in us, that we could do a far better job of behavi9ng as gentlemen. She finally "saw the light" and quickly agreed that women should control themselves as well as men. And that they should NOT be given a free pass......just because it is "that time of the month". And that if a MAN should control himself 356 days a year, that a woman should be able to do it also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dks1240 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by SouthernStar Here is another "encounter" that I had: A woman and I were dicussing PMS (Pre-Menstrual Syndrome). The lady informed me that this was a "hormonal thing" and that women had no control over it. That they were basically "authorized" to be bit**** at that time and thast men would just lear to have to accept it because (as she put it) her "hormones were raging". I asked her if men should be held responsible for rape. She said yes, of course. I told her that I disagreed and then I informed her that it was only the mans "hormones raging". And that (in most cases), it was the woman's provacative dressing and actions that caused the mans hormones to rage. That if she had not dressed and acted this way (to taunt and tantalise men) that the man could have controlled himself. That if she had not worn the short dress, see-thru blouse, and high heels, worn the sexy makeup and great smelling perfume, designed with peripherones (or whatever you call them) that are scientiffically manufactured to bring out the animal in us, that we could do a far better job of behavi9ng as gentlemen. She finally "saw the light" and quickly agreed that women should control themselves as well as men. And that they should NOT be given a free pass......just because it is "that time of the month". And that if a MAN should control himself 356 days a year, that a woman should be able to do it also. sorry but i think there is a huge difference between a woman acting like a b!tch for a day and a man RUINING a woman's life by raping her. i don't really think the two can be compared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by dks1240 sorry but i think there is a huge difference between a woman acting like a b!tch for a day and a man RUINING a woman's life by raping her. i don't really think the two can be compared. He wasn't comparing the acts. He was talking how foolish it was for someone not to take accountability for their own actions and blame it on "hormones". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernStar Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by dks1240 nicely said. i have a hand full of girlfriends that scream and shout for women's rights and equality but they b!tch and moan if a guy doesnt treat them like they are freakin royality. ooh it gets real old real fast and if i try to say anything on the matter i get chewed out because im "suppose to be on their side." WHY in the world are you "supposed to be on THEIR side"...?? Aren't THEY the one who drew the line in the dirt and put YOU on the other side? Aren't THEY the one who said...."YOU do this and I do that?" If you are supposed to be on HER SIDE.....why isn't she saying that....."WE do this TOGETHER?" I suggest that you "remind her" of these facts the very next time she says this....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dks1240 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by Westbrook36 He wasn't comparing the acts. He was talking how foolish it was for someone not to take accountability for their own actions and blame it on "hormones". i know what the point is, but also i read it as a comparision between rape and pms. sorry if i read it wrong but that's how i interpreted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by Westbrook36 He wasn't comparing the acts. He was talking how foolish it was for someone not to take accountability for their own actions and blame it on "hormones". To put it nicely, thats not a very good analogy. And it could also be perceived as a threat, and at a bare minimum is going to make a woman uncomfortable. Hence the immediate agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by Tarhog To put it nicely, thats not a very good analogy. And it could also be perceived as a threat, and at a bare minimum is going to make a woman uncomfortable. Hence the immediate agreement. Well, that's a good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Agreed with what Tarhog said. 2 things that should never be used in the same sentence imho. Never had pms, and from what I understand, that's a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernStar Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by Westbrook36 He wasn't comparing the acts. He was talking how foolish it was for someone not to take accountability for their own actions and blame it on "hormones". Exactly. The "results of the two acts can't "normally" be compared. Unless you could argue that the womans insensitive actions and remarks (to a perfectly innocent man) could possible damage his psyche so that he might not be able to have sucessful relations in the future. How many men have been ruined by "dominant mothers" or bit*** that they were involved with before?OK, lets forget the rapoe biut for just a second. WHY shouldn't the man be "justified" in hauling off and knocking the living crap out of a woman who is PMSed at the time? She didn't "control herself" and he didn't either. Even Steven, I'd say. No permanent damage either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernStar Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by Westbrook36 He wasn't comparing the acts. He was talking how foolish it was for someone not to take accountability for their own actions and blame it on "hormones". Exactly. The "results of the two acts can't "normally" be compared. Unless you could argue that the womans insensitive actions and remarks (to a perfectly innocent man) could possible damage his psyche so that he might not be able to have sucessful relations in the future. How many men have been ruined by "dominant mothers" or bit*** that they were involved with before?OK, lets forget the rape bit for just a second. WHY shouldn't the man be "justified" in hauling off and knocking the living crap out of a woman who is PMSed at the time? She didn't "control herself" and he didn't either. Even Steven, I'd say. No permanent damage either way. In fact (if you want to blame someone)........WHO started the crap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I never had much trouble. When I was asked out by a girl She paid,of course I offered to go dutch but she insisted. When we simply met somewhere for dinner we would usually go dutch unless one of us volunteered to pick up the tab. When I ask someone out on a date I fully expect to pay for it....of course if they try to order outragous items I will inform them to get seperate tabs Now that I am married I always get stuck with the bill:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.