Sects And The City
My wife of a year is from a very conservative culture (a Muslim country). She said she'd only dated three guys, and only kissed and held hands. I told her it's nice she was a virgin, but honesty was more important. She kept saying I was the first man to touch her, sleep naked with her, awaken her sensuality, and on and on. Later, she let it slip that she'd slept naked with her exes, but said she'd never lie to me again. Eventually, she let it slip that she'd pretty much done everything but intercourse with two of these guys, but it was a detail she'd forgotten. She doesn't understand how it hurts the male ego to repeatedly say, "You're the only guy I've been with," then, "Sorry, I forgot, you're the third." Had this happened with a guy in her culture, it would have resulted in immediate divorce, and maybe something much worse. So, do I divorce her, or let this go? I'm concerned she may be hiding other things.
--Betrayed
In our country, if people find out you've had premarital sex, they might hoot and slap you on the back once or twice. In Muslim countries, they bring in a guy with a bamboo cane to do it 100 times.
In Saudi Arabia, it's not just premarital sex that'll get you in trouble, but premarital seating. Religious police there actually arrested an American businesswoman for sitting with a male colleague in Starbucks after her office lost power and she needed WiFi. The Times of London reported that the woman was interrogated, strip-searched, and jailed for violating laws against public contact between unrelated men and women. The judge reportedly told her, "You are sinful and you are going to burn in hell." You have to wonder, if she gets hell for sitting near a man in Starbucks, what happens to the giddy 15-year-olds I saw groping each other in the big chair? Is there Hell Plus? Advanced Hell? Or maybe "New Hell! Now With Extra Charcoal!"?
Ask a Western woman if she's "dated" a lot, and she isn't likely to confess, "Why, I'm the Whore of Babylon!" Yet, you married a woman from a culture where slut can equal death, and you thought all you had to do to get her to spill everything was tell her honesty works best for you? As for telling you that you were blazing uncharted territory, and were quite the lover to boot, even Western women with sterling integrity have been known to exclaim, "Wow, that thing's enormous!" Meanwhile, they're thinking, "...compared to the stub of a No. 2 pencil."
Poor Booboo, you weren't her first. Or her second. And there is that possibility you weren't even her third. Get over it. All this moping is distracting you from the essential question: Did she lie about her sexploits out of some ingrained policy for self-preservation, or are you likely to wake up alone one morning and find that your bank account's cleaned out, your car is gone, and she's even taken the dog? The fact that her character is kind of a mystery to you suggests you pledged to spend the rest of your life with a near stranger. Smooth move, dude! At least get to know the woman before you divorce her: Is she ethical? Even when nobody's looking? Does it mean something to her to do the right thing? Does she act in your best interest or does she just act interested out of self-interest? I know, boring questions, but they'll ultimately be more instructive than interrogating her about whether she let Achmed get to third base in the summer of 2003.
Comments
Maybe those were "boring questions", but this is a brilliant response, Amy. I learned something very important today - thank you. I hope it resonates with him as it has with me (and I'm not even in this particular situation, or anything even close, but for the future, I must remember this).
Posted by: soleil at April 16, 2008 1:47 AM
I'd say she was feeling very defensive about her past, which would hardly be surprising. Expect more revelations.
So, do I divorce her, or let this go? I'm concerned she may be hiding other things.
Listen, everybody hides things - including you. Things that you are embarrassed or ashamed or fearful of. Things you think will make others think less of you. Generally, others don't give a damn: they're too busy thinking about themselves, but this is not an area where people are renowned for thinking straight. So if the fact that she is hiding something is enough to make you consider a divorce, then your standards are impossibly high. You are being hypocritical and hypercritical at the same time.
This is the woman you took as your wife. She could do with some support here, as part of your growing and developing your lives together. For goodness' sake, show some loving concern.
Posted by: Norman at April 16, 2008 2:23 AM
It's be interesting to know how long they knew each other before they got married. I mean, did they meet, date for a month, and then she (or maybe even he) pressed for a set date? Have/had they met each other's friends and/or family? In other words, did either one know the job was dangerous when he took it? You have to take the time to get to really know someone before you get involved in a relationship that long term, I would think! YMMV
Posted by: Flynne at April 16, 2008 5:19 AM
It'D, it'd be interesting to know...damn. need coffee.
Posted by: Flynne at April 16, 2008 5:20 AM
You went right to the heart of the issue Amy. Kudos. Judging behaviour and motivations of someone from another culture by the yardstick of our own cultural standards brings nothing but trouble. (Just look at the military chaos we've caused in the Middle East...) Yes, finding out a spouse has lied about their past can make you wonder what else is hiding under the carpet, but knee-jerk preservation of life is miles away from habitual lying as a systemic character flaw.
Posted by: Carol at April 16, 2008 6:00 AM
Well if you ask most US women your dating how many guys have ridden that pony (phrase it that way for a real fun night) you likely get slapped or dumped. If an American women under the age of 20 who is not a jesus freak "kept saying I (you) was the first man to touch her" I'd be suspicious. Now given her background there is absolutely nothing that we as gringos or imported gringos can say about her motives. If anyone here is from a strict Muslim country that's different.
As far as the LW I can see both side of his thought process. If she is willing to lie vehemently about her past what would stop her from lying about her current affairs? While we all hide things (I rather inept at it so I don't do things that I really need to hide) the question is what should we hide and what shouldn't we hide from SO. Going to Neman Marcus hiding the stuff and receipts if your making 500K as a family once in a while is fine, annoying but fine. Doing so when you mortgage/rent is past due and you total income is 60K probably a deal breaker. Both are kind of bad habits only one is self destructive. Before you rush off to divorce her talk to her as to why she lied. Try to understand her motivations. If she's willing to open up then listen. If she blows you off and comes out with the none of your business line then I'd leave.
Posted by: vlad at April 16, 2008 6:16 AM
"but it was a detail she'd forgotten." That would be a red flag for any American or European women. If she forgets details like this then it didn't happen once or twice but she's been ridden like a rental car. Fine your past is your past but why lie about it especially if you aren't prompted.
Posted by: vlad at April 16, 2008 6:24 AM
Vlad,
I think you should reword your metaphor: How many different ponies has she ridden.
But anyway, people lie all the time...especially to themselves. I rarely give much stock in people's interpretations of their own lives. I look for the actions, as Amy and Vlad said. I think a lot of people justify their bad behaviors, even to the point of martyrdom.
The thing that kills me is how obviously important her near-virginal status is to him. It's not, "she said she could really cook a mean steak, but, really, it's just average." It's not really about the "lies" but his conquerer syndrome, to feel he has "gone where no other man has been before!" Pathetic.
I guess if he lowers himself to stay with her, he will eventually write a family manual for blow jobs, doggie style, and even the occasional quickie. Lucky her.
Posted by: kg at April 16, 2008 6:54 AM
It sounds like the thing he's most upset about is that he feels he's a victim of 'bait & switch'. Here he was, thinking he married himself a nice virgin, and now that he's closed the deal and made the purchase, it turns out she's not. Boohoo.
I guess the next time he marries a virgin, he should check to make sure her hymen is unbroken-but that can be surgically rebuilt, so the poor guy will never be sure...unless he goes for a really young one.
Posted by: Chrissy at April 16, 2008 7:21 AM
"The thing that kills me is how obviously important her near-virginal status is to him. It's not, "she said she could really cook a mean steak, but, really, it's just average." Not sure. Is it that she's a virgin or that she lied about her past. Ones ability or inability to cook is subjective. Ones physical behavior is not. Put simply some may like her falafel and some may not but the number of cocks she has had in her mouth is a countable phenomenon and mostly not up for debate. I guess you can argue about how one counts it, do repeats count as one or one per event.
He seams more upset about the lying at least that's what he wrote.
Posted by: vlad at April 16, 2008 7:21 AM
"Eventually, she let it slip that she'd pretty much done everything but intercourse with two of these guys, but it was a detail she'd forgotten." So as far as we or he knows she was a virgin.
Posted by: vlad at April 16, 2008 7:23 AM
He does say its the lying, but he also talks about the male ego, which makes it a bit suspect. No one likes to be lied to, but if its his "male" ego that's been hurt, there may be a bit more to it than that.
She's from a place where being a virgin is required to stay alive. I wonder, do Muslim men ever say they want honesty and its OK while trying to entice a woman, but then beat them when they get an answer they don't like? Surely our culture (men & women) doesn't have a corner on relationship manipulation!
Perhaps she's starting to trust LW enough to tell the truth, testing the waters. The advice to him is right on...maybe hang in there long enough to find out who she really is before he decides what to do.
Posted by: moreta at April 16, 2008 7:30 AM
Sorry for a double post...but before any of our downtrodden by feminists participants start ranting: There's nothing wrong with the male ego and if its hurt because he's not the first, well that's cool. But to say its only the lying that bothers him if its also the fact he wasn't the one to "awaken her sensuality"...well, then just admit it.
Posted by: moreta at April 16, 2008 7:41 AM
Entertaining response (as usual) Amy.
kg -
I'm not sure how much you should read into a shortish letter like this. To go from his statement that "honesty was more important," to your conclusion that he's got 'conqueror' syndrome and is more bothered about not being "the first" is a stretch.
It's equally likely that he's been burned by previous partners' lies and that honesty in the relationship means a lot to him as a result. It's quite a jump for his wife to go from saying "I only ever held hands and kissed" to "I did everything bar swinging off the chandeliers."
He is over-reacting to want to divorce on the strength of this, but it's more than enough to justify raising a couple of red flags in his mind and to start thinking about what else she's 'forgotten.'
Posted by: James at April 16, 2008 7:48 AM
I'd say dump her. For reasons probably arising from innate, evolved biology, guys (by and large) don't want sluts.
The LW's wife was crazy enough to risk dire punishment or death to fuck the mythic "Achmed." Then, LW has ever more reason to think she'll risk divorce to fuck the pool boy too. It appears nothing will moderate this woman's sexual activity. She might even put LW on the hook for the pool boy's baby. LW, pack up her burkhas and send her home to momma.
Women delude themselves: your sexual history can fuck up more than your vagina.
Posted by: Jeff at April 16, 2008 8:26 AM
James,
I don't think it is a stretch because of what you point out...the "over-reacting to want to divorce." What man would marry someone for better or worse blah, blah, blah and then be ready to bail over a forgotten blowjob or ten? Talk about dishonesty. Isn't marriage a covenant? She didn't even fuck the other guys, but who cares if she did. I don't ask guys for their log books on girls they have "bagged" and I don't answer questions about mine. If someone can't live without knowing, then I don't want to be with him. I'm a realistic person who doesn't like to paint my romantic life like a hollywood blockbuster. He doesn't say she lied about anything else but sexual activity. Obviously, he wanted the virginal type. He chose a good muslim girl in the first place.
If he were a better person, he would recognize how negatively her endoctrinated religious beliefs have stiffled her personality. He would buy her some porn and a dildo...and teach her how to use it! He'd fuck her good on a regular basis and celebrate for joy that he has helped destroy the mental manacles of oppression that has created her fear of desire and fullfillment.
But that's just my view.
Posted by: kg at April 16, 2008 8:27 AM
"He doesn't say she lied about anything else but sexual activity. Obviously, he wanted the virginal type. He chose a good Muslim girl in the first place." Or he developed feelings for someone who happens to be from a Muslim country. He may like darker skinned dark haired women, Mid-east is good for that type. He may like the idea of trying to save her from that barbaric culture. His feelings may have nothing to do with virginity. Besides she was a virgin before they consummated the marriage.
Posted by: vlad at April 16, 2008 8:38 AM
"then be ready to bail over a forgotten blowjob or ten? " Well this is a little different than what he has. Not knowing how many BJs you have given in your life or how many time you were at a gang bang is one thing. You don't forget if you have given a BJ or been at a gang bang. No one forgets that they did something especially if they are willing to repeatedly lie about it. The number of times is a different story.
Posted by: vlad at April 16, 2008 8:42 AM
She is a grown woman for chrissake. She has absolutely no reason to either 1) feel ashamed of her past experiences, or 2) feel obligated to tell anyone else about them. They are her business alone. Maybe her husband is acting like an insecure little turd to be talking about divorce. But it is annoying that she feels the need to trot out the whole dog and pony show about her virginity, him being the first man to awaken her sensuality, blah blah blah, in the first place. She is acting like a teenager who makes up lies to her parents about making out with her boyfriend in the backseat of the car. Isn't she a little old for this nonsense? This is great example of how primitive, backwards-assed cultures turn women into infantilized fools.
Posted by: Pirate Jo at April 16, 2008 8:44 AM
She has absolutely no reason to either 1) feel ashamed of her past experiences, or 2) feel obligated to tell anyone else about them. They are her business alone (Pirate Jo).Maybe she does. Are you saying sexual history is not relevant to selecting a permanent mate? Come on. It's not just her business.Maybe her husband is acting like an insecure little turd to be talking about divorce (Priate Jo).But is he unreasoanbly insecure? Insecurity is a virtue or a vice depending on the circumstances.She is acting like a teenager who makes up lies to her parents about making out with her boyfriend in the backseat of the car. Isn't she a little old for this nonsense? This is great example of how primitive, backwards-assed cultures turn women into infantilized fools (Pirate Jo).She married under false pretenses. Most women here think it's OK to lie to a prospective mate about their sexual history, but please don't take that point as stipulated. I, for one, dispute it.
Posted by: Jeff at April 16, 2008 8:58 AM
This couple is just too stupid to comment on.
Get over it. Both of you. Then do the world of favor --don't have any kids.
Posted by: callie at April 16, 2008 9:12 AM
KG-
"Isn't marriage a covenant? She didn't even fuck the other guys, but who cares if she did. I don't ask guys for their log books on girls they have "bagged" and I don't answer questions about mine."
But don't those two points blow a hole in your own logic?
Marriage IS a covenant - but it's one that should be entered (by both sides) in good faith. Would you be quite so tough if the LWs wife was writing in rather than him? If she was complaining that he'd lied over something similar? (maybe that's unfair - perhaps you would be).
Similarly, your point about 'don't ask, don't tell' may be a good general philosophy, but in this case she went out of her way to convey something that wasn't true. She didn't lie by omission - she made up a completely false sexual history.
My wife has never given me a 'number,' or gone into detail about any of her previous boyfriends, and I am happy that that's so. However, I think I'd be justified in feeling hurt, and possibly suspicious, if she'd told me outright lies about her past. Not because I'd think her a 'slut' but because she hadn't been honest with me.
That's what goes to the very root of marriage being a covenant.
Posted by: James at April 16, 2008 9:24 AM
Good points James. Outright lying is wrong. While I don't think past sexual history is generally relevant, it was important enough to him to ask and press the issue.
What makes this case a bit grey, I think, is not whether its the man or woman lying, but the culture which may have conditioned her to lie and not consider the idea of saying "None of your business" in a polite way and considering telling him to hit the road if he insisted on knowing.
I think the only time past sexual history is fair game is in the case of STDs and possibly cheating on previous "exclusive" mates. What you did as a single, isn't relevant.
Posted by: moreta at April 16, 2008 9:56 AM
"Are you saying sexual history is not relevant to selecting a permanent mate? Come on. It's not just her business."
I'm 38 years old and my boyfriend is 31. He doesn't give a crap what I did twenty years ago when I was back in college, and I would probably have trouble remembering anyway. And likewise, I think the same thing is ancient history for him.
There is a whole mentality about it being important for women to be able to offer virginity that makes about as much sense as believing in the tooth fairy, as far as I'm concerned. So to an extent, no, I don't believe sexual history is relevant to choosing a permanent mate. It's a matter of degree. How long ago was it, for example? If I slept with a hundred people last month, my boyfriend might have a reason to care, but that is the other end of the extreme from being able to promise virginity. Why in blazes would I still want to be a virgin at my age anyway?
Posted by: Pirate Jo at April 16, 2008 10:13 AM
I'm seeing the culture-shock aspects of this really... how much does guy know about a culture he wasn't raised in? Not everyone has internalized that women form Islamic countries must be careful what they say to stay alive, it is likely he took it as face value. When someone tells you stories about the past history, you don't have a reason to question, unless they give you one. Maybe she said these things to seal the deal... and that would have been culture shock in the opposite way, did she really need to seal the deal? He mightn't have cared, if she hadn't said anything. Most people in the US probably assume that a partner has been around the block a time or two. But if that partner says, "no, it was a stainless steel chastity belt, or no, I've never had any kind of VD, or no, I'm totally over the last person, and I only have eyes for you..." These are expressive things that they are selling as Truth.
So... when it comes out that the words were LIES, deliberate falsehoods, you start waiting for the other shoe to drop. The culture shock hits pretty hard then because you know there are differences in your cultures, but when even the thing that you thought you knew, proves wrong? What is your frame of reference?
It's all a Q? because we don't know all the facts, but it sounds as though she could be playing him for fool, because of the things she has said, this isn't a case of all the things left unsaid.
Posted by: SwissArmyD at April 16, 2008 10:14 AM
I'm not from a conservative Islamic country, but I conducted over 70 individual interviews and a few focus groups with Muslim women from such countries for my dissertation on Muslim women's experiences with reproductive health care.
Obviously, no one other than the wife can explain why she concealed the truth, but the LW should consider that his wife did not feel comfortable sharing her past experiences with him until recently. In my interviews, women frequently mentioned feeling valued for specific traits, like virginity and chastity, and anything contradictory to this was not to be discussed. So, if a woman and her husband had engaged in sex before marriage, or anal sex after marriage, these things were never to be discussed, even between the two parties. Women explained feeling immense pressure to live up to their husband's expectations, even if he knew she didn't (like he knew she'd had contact with other men or even with him outside marriage) or if he pressured her to "tell the truth" about something he suspected she had done (whether or not she actually had). I heard about the latter when women contracted STIs, most likely from their husbands, but were pressured by their husbands to admit they themselves had been unfaithful or "dirty". In both cases, it is the women's priority to maintain the appearance of chastity and modesty. If the LW's wife comes from a similar culture, she most likely had long internalized the need to always maintain this front, as women (and men!) in her culture do.
Oh - and one last note. In my interviews, I found that the sexual desires and practices of Muslims are not that much different than those of Americans - their sexual encounters are simply less frequent and their actions and desires are not at all discussed, but they do occur (even in Saudi Arabia). So, when Jeff writes that "(t)he LW's wife was crazy enough to risk dire punishment or death to fuck the mythic "Achmed." Then, LW has ever more reason to think she'll risk divorce to fuck the pool boy too. It appears nothing will moderate this woman's sexual activity", he appears to be way off base.
Posted by: TAG at April 16, 2008 10:42 AM
"Had this happened with a guy in her culture..." That's the important part: It didn't. It happened with a man from a vastly different culture than the one she came from. I imagine that if she had settled down with a fellow from homeland that she would have never, ever brought it up at all. (Probably.) It's something the LW needs to keep firmly in mind-- Just because she married a foreigner doesn't mean she'll automagically start acting/thinking like the women he's known his whole life.
Posted by: Jean Moczy at April 16, 2008 11:51 AM
TAG...Wow!
Good point SwissArmy. I wish I knew the background of the LW and how much he knew(knows) about muslim culture. Vlad, people do forget. I doubt the letter writer's wife really did, but you can forget random sex pretty easily. Also, "the number of cocks she has had in her mouth is a countable phenomenon and mostly not up for debate." Its not really a phenomenon at all, and although it is countable, it is debatable if no one is keeping count. And I don't care how fine a muslim dude is, I would be extremely disinclined to date him seriously. I might break his spirit.
James,
Absolutely I would be so tough on a wife. Probably more so. I wasn't really saying marriage IS a covenant. I was saying it probably is to them. I think the fact that she has revealed the truth speaks volumes about her trust in him, especially because of her background. His thinking of divorcing over it strikes me as insincerity (not to mention crybabyish)on his part. I agree with you about her offering the information without being questioned, but do we really know whether she was or wasn't? Maybe they had those annoying initial conversations early on, and she withheld then. Maybe it is hard for her to discuss sexual activity and she didn't know how to rectify the early wrong. I don't know. I wouldn't have said anything later anyway, but maybe that's because I didn't try to frame my hymen when I had the chance.
Posted by: kg at April 16, 2008 12:05 PM
I know I've posted this before, but I have to say it again, sorry: virginity is an outdated social construct, no longer relevant to the health and proper function of relationships and society.
Women are sometimes born without hymens. I am one of those. Therefore, by the physical definition of the word, I was never a virgin.
If you get into the more psychological/spiritual element - I have yet to hear an adequate definition of what constitutes this mythical "purity" and where to draw the line. Does oral sex count? What about sucking face? What about anal? Is the vagina the last and therefore most sacred step? Give as many blow jobs as you want, by all means get fucked hard up the ass, but save the precious vagina for me (and dammit, don't lie about it!!!).
Posted by: Jessica at April 16, 2008 12:15 PM
"sorry: virginity is an outdated social construct, no longer relevant to the health and proper function of relationships and society." Jessica.
This is true for you, this isn't true for everyone. Sadly it isn't true for Islam, because they ARE rellying on social constructs from a thousand years ago. Simply saying sorry, doesn't change things.
For the extreme religions, this will be a forced change that societies the immigrate to can levy on them. Like the elimination of honor killing and polygamy. Changing the unspoken norms of a culture, is far harder...
Posted by: SwissArmyD at April 16, 2008 12:29 PM
"Vlad, people do forget." People forget how many times a certain act happened. You don't forget if you ever got/gave a BJ, had sex (regardless of where it got put) etc. While a person's sexual past should be just that the past there are some people who don't see it that way or people who see it differently at different times.
While I don't agree with the logic of virginity I can see it, and it works equal for both sexes. Think of it in terms of sleeping with everyone they slept with. On the other hand is she/he always used a rubber then it can be argued that it's more of a dildo/pocket cooch with a pulse.
Posted by: vlad at April 16, 2008 12:48 PM
Yes, SwissArmy, I know you're right, so I suppose I'm just expressing my personal disgust and repulsion.
Posted by: Jessica at April 16, 2008 12:57 PM
I know I've posted this before, but I have to say it again, sorry: virginity is an outdated social construct, no longer relevant to the health and proper function of relationships and society (Jesica).
Well please tell us, what's the proper health and function of a relationship.
It's certainly no longer relevant for men to pay for dates to show they are good provider, yet Amy and many here think we should still pay obeisance to our biology. What's the difference here? Isn't this another case of a woman using a type of evidence in one case, while denying it in another?
Women are sometimes born without hymens. I am one of those. Therefore, by the physical definition of the word, I was never a virgin. If you get into the more psychological/spiritual element - I have yet to hear an adequate definition of what constitutes this mythical "purity" and where to draw the line (Jessica).
The existence of borderline cases does not invalidate the truthfulness and validity of practical judgments.
Posted by: Jeff at April 16, 2008 1:22 PM
>>Isn't marriage a covenant?
Marriage has not been a covenant in the US for a number of decades. No system of marriage with one divorce for every two marriages can possibly be called a covenant by any truly sane person. Sick joke, maybe, but not a covenant.
Since I don't have all the information Amy has, this is only a hunch. But, my hunch is this guy mostly married her because he thought she was a virgin, which is a rare phenomenon today in the US, and paid little attention to her other personality traits. I have known too many men like that.
My first wife was a virgin, I think. Our marriage was as close to hell as a marriage can be.
My present wife of 32+ years was not only not a virgin, she was even an unwed mother. Her daughter is the best single thing that happened to me in my entire life; I can't imagine life without that girl in it. The numbers on marriage to unwed mothers are not good; I feel like I won the big lottery on my first ticket.
IMO, the reasons for the importance of virginity in traditional marriages:
1. Men want to know their kids are their kids. Pre-DNA testing, one was mostly guessing and hoping. Many women scoff at men who worry if a kid is theirs or not, but listen to female screams of horror when a baby gets swapped in the hospital. It happened again in the last week or two. Talk is always cheap when you are telling someone else what to do.
2. Though I am the last person to believe it actually works (see comment about first wife above) it was traditionally viewed as a sign of character and morality. If a woman couldn't even wait for her husband/future husband for sex, she was viewed as unlikely to be faithful over a long marriage.
Posted by: irlandes at April 16, 2008 1:50 PM
irlandes, aren't your two numbered points still applicable to modern relationships?
Posted by: Jeff at April 16, 2008 1:56 PM
I gathered the same thing from the letter - that her lying was what he said was important, when really it was the fact that he wasn't the first one there.
We all lie about sex. If anyone can seriously maintain that this isn't true, they're either seriously naive or stubborn. Sex = shame in our culture, and whenever you connect shame with something that people really want to do, you're going to get a slew of lies. Even when people answer anonymous surveys about their sex lives, they lie.
In my opinion, men that still care about how many men a woman has been with are more or less insecure. If you want to know what kind of person she is, the number of boyfriends she's cheated on is far more relevant. Sexual health is something that is pretty easy to protect, to test, and to verify, so we really can't hide behind that excuse anymore. You've fucked the entire football team? By 6 months to a year on the outside, your status can be verified.
If the number or activities he or she has done is really, truly a deal-breaker: 1) good friggin' luck - you'll have a really hard time finding someone who really, really is going to fit your concept, no little fibs. 2) You may need to revise your other standards - gone are the days of lots of women who are everything awesome and also haven't come to explore their natural sexuality 3) make sure they understand that you actually want to know this info, and that it is a deal-breaker - there are a lot of questions that people ask that, when pressed, they really don't want the answers to. Sometimes they just ask because they need to be reassured that they're special, etc.
The best answer to the #/experience question: "I've never been with anyone as amazing as you." In one way or another, that should be true or you shouldn't be with them.
Posted by: Christina at April 16, 2008 2:05 PM
No, Jeff, #2 at least is not still the same. Women were traditionally married very early. Women are still losing their virginities at about the same time save for a few outliers. Women didn't have to "wait" then, because about the time their bodies were going "go go go!" they were being married. Now, you may get married 10+ years after you are physically ready to have sex.
Just curious, should men wait too?
#1 - DNA testing, easy, cheap, fast.
Posted by: Christina at April 16, 2008 2:09 PM
An American friend of mine dated a Muslim man from the Middle East. He convinced her that in the Middle East they had "test marriages" where you don't really get married but live together as man and wife to decide if you want to get married (couples set the rules for sex). She agreed to the test marriage. He eventually proposed for real and she was really excited about the fact that they were getting married (he was a jerk who hit on me all the time and she knew it). Anyway, when Sadaam was captured he went back there to visit family and married a girl there that he said he was in a "test marriage" with before having to leave the country.
I don't know if "test marriages" are real. I can't even pretend to understand the Muslim culture. But if they are real, maybe LWs wife had a few "test marriages". If she did not have sex with these guys then technically she is still a virgin. However, she should not have lied. But why is he considering divorce at this point? Has he never heard of counseling.
Posted by: Marie E at April 16, 2008 2:13 PM
I'd like to point out that regardless of how many people you have slept with you lose your virginity the first time. So if you want a virgin two things have to happen. 1) Define virgin for your self. 2) Accept that there are certain things you have to give up to achieve it.
1) There are several definition for virgin/purity. Never been touched by men at all ever, your stuck with fundies or marrying very very young. Then you have to whole spectrum of peck on the cheak to it got shoved every where but there. Then you have never been penetrated there by men. Finally the intact hyman. With the exception of the last one you have to take it on faith unless you kidnapped her at birth and raised her for said purpose. The intact hyman is a bad test for several reasons. One example if she's a gymnast it can either be torn (no sexually) or stretched to such an extent that she can have to John Holmes and still have it remain intact.
2)Things you will have to give up. Fundy girls don't go down town. They have NO experience in the sack, so either the sex is bad or you are a hipocryte. She will always wonder if there is more to sex especially if your bad at it. If she happens to think sex is dirty we will all know how many times you did it by counting the number of kids you have (priest at my old church). She' unlikely to watch porn or allow you to do so, sinning much.
Evolutionarily speaking harems are the optimal solution in a war torn society (If you are a harem member you "reputation" by modern standards is shot far more then being a slut). Here's why. Assuming that men and women are born at the same rate or near the same rate. Men will die in war at a faster rate than women will from child birth, accidents etc. So you will have more women than you do men. Women can only produce one offspring (or group of related ones) at one time, men can spread their seed at will. So you have max reproduction rates in a society where man as hunters/soldiers are limited through harems. Also without modern medicine the only way to tell if a women is fertile is to get her pregnant. So a harem with women only joining after they have had one kid at least would be optimal evolutionary approach.
Posted by: vlad at April 16, 2008 2:13 PM
In my opinion, men that still care about how many men a woman has been with are more or less insecure.Yes, but it's a rational insecurity. The issue isn't sexual health but sexual responsibility and evidence of self-control.
You may need to revise your other standards - gone are the days of lots of women who are everything awesome and also haven't come to explore their natural sexuality (Christina)And what of the natural male preference for non-sluts?
The best answer to the #/experience question: "I've never been with anyone as amazing as you." In one way or another, that should be true or you shouldn't be with them (Christina).Of course, even if true, this is an evasion.
Posted by: Jeff at April 16, 2008 2:15 PM
>>irlandes, aren't your two numbered points still applicable to modern relationships? (Jeff)
That is sort of like the traditional joke question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Any one who enters a modern relationship anywhere in the Anglosphere has already messed up big time. The details don't really matter.
Whether marriage or otherwise, the modern relationship exists solely to transfer the products of your labor to a woman. Any benefits you receive are strictly at her whim. Even to hint you receive any rights in exchange for large amounts of money you earned gets you labeled as the most vicious scumbag on the planet.
Does that answer your question?
Posted by: irlandes at April 16, 2008 2:26 PM
Evolutionarily speaking harems are the optimal solution in a war torn society (If you are a harem member you "reputation" by modern standards is shot far more then being a slut). Here's why. Assuming that men and women are born at the same rate or near the same rate. Men will die in war at a faster rate than women will from child birth, accidents etc. So you will have more women than you do men. Women can only produce one offspring (or group of related ones) at one time, men can spread their seed at will. So you have max reproduction rates in a society where man as hunters/soldiers are limited through harems. Also without modern medicine the only way to tell if a women is fertile is to get her pregnant. So a harem with women only joining after they have had one kid at least would be optimal evolutionary approach (vlad).
Monogamous societies produce more offspring than polygamous societies by spreading the care and production of the young across the population. also, monogamous societies tend to less internal strife (i.e. war) because polygamous societies result in masses of men without access to mates. However, this is in some ways at odds with the "big man" societies at the dawn of civilization.
Do keep in mind that, in all species of primates, the dominant males tend to kill the offspring of other males before a female is allowed into the "harem." This also has a tendency to push down the numbers of offspring.
I'm glad to see someone recognizing the male dominance instinct, which IMHO is actually superordinate to the sex instinct. The male sexual instinct is a result of the male dominance instinct. Happy relationships with males is about finding peaceful coexistence with that dominant nature. By and large, sluts can't find that place.
Posted by: Jeff at April 16, 2008 2:27 PM
You can be a "slut" and still be sexually responsible, and have self-control. Or do you think sex is bad and therefore you should control yourself and not have it?
You didn't answer whether men should also be held to the same standards.
Prefer away. A woman might prefer a 25 year old, gorgeous millionaire who likes to go down on her for hours, but she's not very likely to get one. If a natural preference for virgins exists, one would probably evaluate why. We have. Health, paternity, and fidelity are the main ones, all of which no longer require virginity. A womans' supposedly natural preference is for wealthy men, yet this is no longer necessary, so women don't usually make this a priority.
Posted by: Christina at April 16, 2008 2:30 PM
"My present wife of 32+ years was not only not a virgin, she was even an unwed mother. Her daughter is the best single thing that happened to me in my entire life; I can't imagine life without that girl in it. The numbers on marriage to unwed mothers are not good; I feel like I won the big lottery on my first ticket." - Irlandes
I have to take a moment here to applaud you. As a single mother, I often get asked out by guys that want to act like my child should disappear from my life. One guy even went so far as to say that he should come before my (three year old) son because my son is adopted (and this was about two days after the first date - not that it matters).
Posted by: Marie E at April 16, 2008 2:53 PM
I've had a couple of thoughts on this one, mainly
- If she told him this little "fable" because he asked, well then, he needs to ease up. My policy (in most things) is "Don't ask questions that you won't like the answers to" ....
- If she just volunteered this "information" then she's the one that opened this can of worms. She gave him one story, he said "Ok, fine". Then amended that story ...... then amended THAT story. I can see where he might start getting a little .... concerned. But divorce, not necessary. What he needs to do is sit her down and explain that whatever the complete truth is, she should feel safe enough to tell him otherwise the other shoe drop that he's waiting is going to cause a problem in the area of trust.
And I do agree with previous posts. Aside from medically important info, do not even start asking these kind of questions because you really do not want to know the whole truth
Posted by: pakratt at April 16, 2008 3:02 PM
You didn't answer whether men should also be held to the same standards (Christina).I have on many previous threads, and I've answered 'no.' By and large, women aren't as concerned about promiscuity as men are. It's a rational double standard.
You can be a "slut" and still be sexually responsibleOne can, but it it likely? It's a matter of practical judgment. Past behavior matters in finances, friendships, and yes sex.
A womans' supposedly natural preference is for wealthy men, yet this is no longer necessary, so women don't usually make this a priority.Yes they do. The evidence is plentiful and cross cultural.
Do you want it both ways? When it disadvantages men, should we use evidence from evolutionary biology to uphold outdated practices like paying for dates, but then deny the warrant for such evidence when it disadvantages women?
Posted by: Jeff at April 16, 2008 3:02 PM
To elaborate on Christina's first point/question, I equate self-control or self-discipline to the act of abstaining from (or moderating my use of) something that is fun but not good for me. I do homework in the evening instead of opening a bottle of wine and watching a movie. Or I go to the gym and eat a salad for supper instead of pigging out on a triple cheeseburger. There's nothing wrong with wine, movies, or triple cheeseburgers, but self-discipline means striking a balance between what's fun right now versus what I want to accomplish long-term.
I have no desire to have sex with, say, married men. There are few things more pathetic, in my view, then married men who mindlessly follow their dicks around, hitting on single women. Also no interest in guys who already have girlfriends or guys who are jerks. But beyond that, I don't view sex as something I should abstain from. If I have a boyfriend, I'm going to be sleeping with him at some point - that's one of the main reasons to even have a boyfriend in the first place. I don't see that as an indication that I lack control, when I see no reason to not be doing it.
But this discussion reminded me of a funny old Jehovah's Witnesses story. A young woman I knew was rhapsodizing about how great it was to have saved herself for her husband, and patting herself on the back for being a virgin on their wedding night. Well, she had dropped out of high school and gotten married at the age of 16, so I thought that under those circumstances it didn't exactly take ironclad restraint to wait until marriage. I'm now 38, have never been married, and am certainly not a virgin, but I still waited longer to have sex than she did! That ho. :-)
Posted by: Pirate Jo at April 16, 2008 3:03 PM
My policy (in most things) is "Don't ask questions that you won't like the answers to"...Aside from medically important info, do not even start asking these kind of questions because you really do not want to know the whole truth (pakratt)Great way to start a monogamous relationship: build it on ignorance of precisely the basic behavior upon which the relationship is based.
?!?
Posted by: Jeff at April 16, 2008 3:05 PM
A young woman I knew was rhapsodizing about how great it was to have saved herself for her husband, and patting herself on the back for being a virgin on their wedding night...I'm now 38, have never been married, and am certainly not a virgin, but I still waited longer to have sex than she did! That ho. :-) (Pirate Jo)LOL!
Posted by: Jeff at April 16, 2008 3:07 PM
It seems to me that men and women are drawn to partners with SIMILAR backgrounds, whatever those backgrounds happen to be. And by the way, I completely agree with pakratt's comment above. That's very compassionate and understanding advice, similar to what Amy gave.
Posted by: Pirate Jo at April 16, 2008 3:10 PM
>>Just curious, should men wait too?
That was not in LW's letter. The issue is not whether men or women should wait. The issue seems to be whether someone wants to marry someone who didn't wait.
We no longer have arranged or forced marriages, unless someone violates our laws (which has happened, of course; that's why we have prisons.)
Anyone has the right to attempt to marry anyone he/she wants. If a man wants to marry a virgin, he can try and if he convinces a willing virgin to marry him, it's no one's business under current culture and law. Fairness is not a valid parameter when a man or woman seeks a mate.
If a woman wants to marry a man who is also virginal, that is her right to try to find one. Even if she has personally had 300 lovers.
Many studies over many years show that few woman rate male virginity high on their list of male attributes. And, that has been true in most cultures. With the growth of STD's, maybe that will change some day.
I didn't mention STD's as another reason for traditionally wanting a virgin. That's because STD's were not traditionally a major problem among women.
Today they are. Some studies show that a majority of American Women today have one or more STD's. I am talking really young ones at that. Chlamydia (sp?) is very common.
One major mistake many women make is to assume that all men are sexually active. Except for the traditional heavy date with Rosie Palmer. They assume because they personally have many lovers, that all young men are also doing that. Not true.
A major percentage of young women are sexually active, but only with a minority of men. The studs; or alphas, or whatever you wish to call them. The hairy chested thugs, aka known as Bad Boys. They are exciting and hormonal. They treat women badly at times, but they keep going back for more.
The majority of men, we call them Nice Guys, would like to marry and have kids and work for them. These guys are B-O-R-I-N-G and get nothing except insults. Loser; etc.
Until Cupcake gets baby rabies, then she wants the Nice Guy for a husband. Yeah, she will soon enough dump him, and not let him see his kids, but Nice Guys are good for support payments.
No one can be sure of the ratios. It varies from 80% to 95% of young women are sleeping (er, staying awake in bed, I mean) with from 5% to 20% of young men. I tend to think the 80/20 is most probable. But, numbers aren't important; what is important is that many young men are virgins against their will, because they don't attract thrill seeking young women who tend to have sex with the same minority of men.
In any case, STD's have become much more common among women than men. That was not always the case.
In 1914, Upton Sinclair wrote a book, Sylvia's Marriage, which told the tale of a man who brought gonorrhea into his marriage, and gave it to his wife, and their baby was born blind because of it. You can find that book free on Gutenberg Project. Even to this day, medical people are required by law to treat newborn babies's eyes to prevent it from happening.
Posted by: irlandes at April 16, 2008 3:12 PM
"Great way to start a monogamous relationship: build it on ignorance of precisely the basic behavior upon which the relationship is based."
I guess I'd have an easier time with this if you qualified it to refer to RECENT behavior. Is my behavior from fifteen years ago in any way relevant to my current relationship? I certainly don't think so. My boyfriend has never even asked about that stuff. The subject never comes up because it's completely irrelevant. I don't think it's because he's all secretly tortured about it but "wants to remain ignorant," it's more that he just doesn't care.
I don't know how recent these former boyfriends were, but it would have to be from a while back at least. She has moved to a new country, gotten married, and been married for some time already. She really shouldn't have brought up the issue and made a big deal out of it, but that's the way she was raised. (Not terribly different than our very own neighborhood fundies, really.) The LW is going to have to be patient about that.
Posted by: Pirate Jo at April 16, 2008 3:19 PM
>>"My present wife of 32+ years was not only not a virgin, she was even an unwed mother. Her daughter is the best single thing that happened to me in my entire life; I can't imagine life without that girl in it. The numbers on marriage to unwed mothers are not good; I feel like I won the big lottery on my first ticket." - Irlandes
>>I have to take a moment here to applaud you. As a single mother, I often get asked out by guys that want to act like my child should disappear from my life. One guy even went so far as to say that he should come before my (three year old) son because my son is adopted (and this was about two days after the first date - not that it matters).
Don't applaud too hard. You may be booing me at the end of this paragraph. :)
In my case, I knew that little girl since she was an infant. The divorce figures on marrying unwed mothers are really negative, and even as I tell my tale, I must advise men it is really a bad idea.
Unless, as in my case, you know both mother and child for seven years before you marry.
i
Posted by: irlandes at April 16, 2008 3:23 PM
Irlandes Boooooooooooooo!!!!
Why do you feel it is a bad idea?
Posted by: Marie E at April 16, 2008 3:29 PM
Irlandes, I will be sure to pass your advice on to the guy who wanted to come before my son. Maybe he will stop calling and texting me.
But I do agree some with what you say. I tend to avoid unwed fathers for the most part. I try to get to know them a little first and find out if they are worth the effort. I make my decision on going forward based on the information I gather from them and observing. Single fathers with custody are different. I admire them for stepping up so they usually have a better chance with me.
Posted by: Marie E at April 16, 2008 3:37 PM
I don't agree that it's a rational double standard. If you ask, most women DO care about a man's sexual history. Some really silly women even care about pornography. Perhaps it's that we were trained that it wasn't relevant, or perhaps none of our business?
I think among my generation it is pretty likely. I see a lot of young women slutting around, but most that I know are pretty rabid about being responsible about it. But I go to school with pretty intelligent people, so perhaps I can't generalize this.
*I* don't want it both ways. If you say that women in the US today are still marrying *primarily* for money, I presume that you have evidence to back that. I'm basing my information off of what I know from college-aged women - anecdotal, and not so reliable. This may be generational, but my peers do not want to be in a serious relationship, are very career focused, and plan on marrying around or after 25. They want someone who makes a decent living, as they will, but not someone to take care of them.
Paying for dates isn't evolutionarily based for me. If you want to date me, take me out and I'll see if you have a shot. It could be $2 coffee, but the fact remains that if YOU want ME, you should pay for the 1st date. Or come up with a date that doesn't cost anything. On my campus, you can see movies for free. I'd be just as happy doing that. If I ask a man out, if I want HIM, I plan to pay. I also do not accept drinks from a man I don't want to talk to. It's about who is interested in whom.
Irlandes - I never said anything about how it should be, or who a person should pursue. I was asking, as it said in the question "just curious", because I wanted to know. Peoples' personal standards can be as fair or unfair as they like. I'm just going after the logic.
I'm also questioning a persons' sexual history as the basis of an entire relationship. Surely that's not what you meant, Jeff?
Posted by: Christina at April 16, 2008 3:43 PM
I keep telling myself not to get involved in this debate...again, but my commute boredom had me thinking of another angle. So...thinking out loud here.
Back in the days we evolved into the highest primate, we likely had no idea that babies were a result of sex. It made me wonder how men could have come to the idea that virgin meant the woman was unlikely to bear other guy's babies. If that's really a man's evolutionary perogative: to make sure he's not taking care of some other guy's kid, how would he have equated that to sex? I can see a need to dominate and being the only one to dominate his own (and as many women as possible). But all that means is he could not observe (or learn about) her behaviour of copulating with others. Her "virginity" was nothing...him being the dominant male by being the sole current partner was what was important.
A man's partner sleeping around on him is a threat to his dominance...someone knows she's doing it and may challenge him. I guess there could be a concern about a previous partner challenging his dominance, if he's weak. But the question isn't about if she's a virgin...its if he perceives a threat to his dominance. That threat would include existing kids, but not ones that come about once he is in control.
So then, if we consider what we presume to be the woman's evolutionary perogative: to pick the guy who will fight off sabre tooth tigers and bring home the wild boar, those are very observable measures. Is he big and strong, have a big cave and a fancy loin cloth? Men want to be dominant, women want men who are dominant. Once she's with one, it doesn't make sense to solicit another as he is likely to kill her existing kids. I'm sure it happened all the time, but back in the cave days, I'd guess it was just a bigger, stronger guy showing up and taking what he wanted...not the woman deciding to kick out the current stud and replace him with the new one.
But animal preferences aside, I still argue that we have this fancy brain that doesn't just act on instinct. We analyze our instincts and develop personal and societal norms that continue to evolve. We can look to chimps for clues, but we can't translate directly. In our culture, now, both sexes nurture children, both sexes bring home the bacon, and both sexes look for a partner with similar values and behaviours (or at least successful partnerships do).
In general, to satisfy a man's baser nature, it becomes a question of the woman's character, not easily observable behavior. She may have had previous partners, maybe even a bunch, but its circumstantial. The real question is if she's likely to solicit some more dominant guy to take your place once she is committed to you. Having a few one night stands and some serial monogamy, in my mind, does not suggest she will. It's partly behavioural, but there's character involved as well. That higher brain allows men to make that judgement based on what he sees of her character now and what he evaluates during courtship. Don't ask, don't tell works for most of them.
And in general, to satisfy a woman's baser nature, its still very measurable. Is he big and strong, does he fight off rude & pushy pedestrians on a busy street, and does he show signs of being able to provide. Again, that higher brain allows women to make that call based on whether he has enough initiative to plan and carry out that first date. Whether there is big cash involved isn't relevant.
As I said...just thinking out loud and my own view of what I think is our current norm. Or I guess more accurately, my current norm.
Posted by: moreta at April 16, 2008 8:34 PM
> Expect more revelations.
Meaning what, exactly?
"Revelations" is heavily loaded word. If it's sarcastic it's hurtful, and if it's sincere it's truly threatening. Either you mean to suggest that she once shot a man in Reno just to watch him die, or you mean that the husband should be surprised that a grown woman once responded to overtures from other man... And the later strikes me as the response of a naive and feminine adolescent.
I'm getting older, and after all these years, there's still nothing that as personally disheartening as the ignorance many otherwise sane women have regarding masculine nature. But we should try to be big boys just as we expect the women in our lives to be big girls. If your partner is an attractive, sensible, warmly-configured personality, you're probably not the first guy to notice, unless you're both still in diapers...
...In which case, you really don't want to get in her pants anyway.
Posted by: Crid at April 16, 2008 9:23 PM
Whoops, that other men not man, and latter not later. Long day of work.
How's that new "meaning" software coming along, Amy?
Posted by: Crid at April 16, 2008 9:24 PM
@Crid: Expect more revelations. I didn't mean anything sarcastic or threatening - just that she will reveal more things about herself as she feels safe to do so. They might be significant to the LW, they might not.
The question is this: do her revelations amount to her being a totally different person than he thought she was? And if so, how does he feel about this new person? And if he can't stand this different person, and neither of them is willing or able to change, then divorce ASAP is the answer. Otherwise, they should see this as part of growing together and get on with married life.
In my judgement, these revelations are not that significant; they are coming out because she feels safe. I don't expect she's even been to Reno. His attitude is the problem.
Posted by: Norman at April 17, 2008 1:38 AM
Irlandes -
"Marriage has not been a covenant in the US for a number of decades. No system of marriage with one divorce for every two marriages can possibly be called a covenant by any truly sane person. Sick joke, maybe, but not a covenant"
What a shame that you think that way. Divorce rates in the UK are getting as bad, but that doesn't stop me from regarding marriage (generally, and specifically my own) as a covenant.
In my case, I don't see it as a covenant with God (but good luck to those that do), but more a promise and a bond between two people who commit to spend their life with each other and do so honestly and without any reservations.
I don't know why the LWs wife lied about her history, or even why the LW felt it necessary to ask about it (assuming she didn't volunteer the information when they met), but she did choose to lie.
Trust MUST be one of the cornerstones of a marriage, and once one partner is caught lying, it raises doubts and tension in the other partner's mind. That's never going to be healthy for the relationship.
If the LW (for instance) had lied to his wife about what job he did, or his level of income etc, wouldn't that be a big cause for concern to her once she found out the truth? Why should her lying about her sexual history be any different to that? Better that she'd demurred from telling him anything than that she should deliberately lie.
Posted by: James at April 17, 2008 5:40 AM
James: "Better that she'd demurred from telling him anything than that she should deliberately lie." True. Also, what you say about trust. But we all make mistakes in our lives. How old are these people? Are they experienced enough to make sensible, mature, self-confident decisions like this? We need to cut them some slack - and especially he needs to cut her some. If he absolutely cannot do this, then she'd be better off without him, as his standards are impossible for any real flesh and blood person to achieve.
Posted by: Norman at April 17, 2008 5:54 AM
The differences in cultures is very important, and I think it is the root of the confusion for the LW. In Toronto, more than half the population was born and raised in another country & culture, and a lot of the first generation that were born here were raised as if they still lived in the old country.
On a professional level, cultural differences aren't important, but when you're getting involved as husband and wife, or even girlfriend boyfriend, it's a huge area for conflict. You assume your partner is looking for the same things out of the relationship that you are, but if you're the woman and the man is from a let's call it 'female unfriendly' culture, things don't pan out very well for you.
I personally will not tolerate being treated like a dog, or housekeeper/free prostitute, so I will only date very Westernized thinking and acting men.
Posted by: Chrissy at April 17, 2008 9:29 AM
I'm basing my information off of what I know from college-aged women - anecdotal, and not so reliable (Christina).My claim of a sexual double standard toward promiscuity is based on a vast literature in feminist and non-feminist, cross-cultural social science and psychology. The so-called "slut double-standard" or "slut defense" (depending upon which field you are in) is well-known, well-researched, and well-established. Women and men evaluate each other's sexual behavior in very different ways at all ages.
I see a lot of young women slutting around, but most that I know are pretty rabid about being responsible about it (Chistina).Do not be surprised if these young women are adjudged unfit for long-term, monogamous relationships by men who know of their exploits.
This may be generational, but my peers do not want to be in a serious relationship, are very career focused, and plan on marrying around or after 25. They want someone who makes a decent living, as they will, but not someone to take care of them (Christina).It isn't generational. Women, by and large, prefer to marry a man who makes more than they. Most women won't marry a man who makes less than they. Again, there's tons of evidence for it.
I've written before that there is another role that men play --- the rake. Rakes are evaluated for their sexual dominance, not their provider dominance.
If you want to date me, take me out and I'll see if you have a shot. It could be $2 coffee, but the fact remains that if YOU want ME, you should pay for the 1st date (Christina).You have illustrated my point perfectly. When a man pays for a date, it's likely that the woman isn't interested in him. The fellow buys her time, to obtain only "a shot," but a woman who will split the costs of a first date is surely interested.
You admit as much when you write,
If I ask a man out, if I want HIM, I plan to pay...It's about who is interested in whom.Yes! It is about who is interested in who. When a woman won't pay, she's likely not interested. My point exactly. Spliting the costs of a first date is an excellent indicator of a woman's sincere interest, allowing a man to avoid the pervasive problem of the professional dater. (A problem women don't encounter by and large.) That's a lot better than just having "a shot" with all the condescension that comes with that female attitude.
I'm also questioning a persons' sexual history as the basis of an entire relationship. Surely that's not what you meant, Jeff (Christina)?
I didn't. Monogamy is the practice of having sex with only one partner. Sexual history is relevant as one factor, perhaps the main factor, perhaps the only factor available, to judge a partner's fitness for the fundamental practice of monogamy --- sexual self control. Since men have a lot more to lose by female infidelity, men place a lot more emphasis on this main factor of sexual past.
Posted by: Jeff at April 17, 2008 9:39 AM
"Do not be surprised if these young women are adjudged unfit for long-term, monogamous relationships by men who know of their exploits."
Now ask these young women if they care. What part of "they aren't INTERESTED in long-term, monogamous relationships" isn't sinking in?
Posted by: Pirate Jo at April 17, 2008 9:53 AM
See, "Wild Oats, Sowing".
Posted by: deja pseu at April 17, 2008 11:07 AM
I have gleaned from Jeff's posts that he fancies himself a dominant male. A dominant male's primary concern is competing with other lesser males for mating access to females. According to his Animal Planet view of human courtship, the female will recognize the dominance of the dominant male, and allow him mating access.
If Jeff is truly a 'rake', he would not be concerned with the suitability of the available females for a long-term relationship because he'd be too busy mating with all the women that would be attracted to his alpha self. He would be the one scaring off potential rival males, not obsessing endlessly about those that went before him. His female mates would rebuff the advances of lesser males due to their attraction to his dominant maleness.
Posted by: Chrissy at April 17, 2008 11:17 AM
I have gleaned from Jeff's posts that he fancies himself a dominant male (Chrissy).Sure, if 'gleaned' means 'made up,' but it doesn't.
You're engaging in the psychological fallacy that is typical of modern female rhetoric. It's unfortunate.
Posted by: Jeff at April 17, 2008 11:52 AM
A woman who splits the cost of the first date is most likely -not- interested.
When I was on a date, I would split the cost of the date if I didn't like the guy, so I wouldn't feel beholden to him. If he didn't offer to pay, I also assumed he wanted to be "just friends", because he wasn't sending me the courtship signals. Sometimes it turned out I was wrong, and he was interested. Usually, though, the guy not paying is a sign of wanting to be friends. And if I liked the guy, I -always- let him pay.
Now, once we were an "item" costs were often split.
Of course this is all behind me now, since I am married. To a guy who always insisted on paying.
Posted by: Nicole at April 17, 2008 11:52 AM
Now ask these young women if they care. What part of "they aren't INTERESTED in long-term, monogamous relationships" isn't sinking in (Pirate Jo)?Perhaps, but guys care. Guys will care when these women ARE interested in long-term, monogamous relationships. Guys care, even if women don't.
Posted by: Jeff at April 17, 2008 11:54 AM
" If I ask a man out, if I want HIM, I plan to pay...It's about who is interested in whom.
Yes! It is about who is interested in who. When a woman won't pay, she's likely not interested."
Now who's missing the point. You read her comment with an obvious sewed view, or you are intentionally pretending one to spark debate.
The key to her statement could just as easily be "If I ask a man out," So if she asks him out then she does the paying. The fact that she is interested in him would be by default. No one male or female ask someone out when they are not interested in that person.
"You're engaging in the psychological fallacy that is typical of modern female rhetoric. It's unfortunate." And making assertions without evidence would be what? Feminist rhetoric is filled with precisely the evidence free assumptions you keep making. If it's different then explain why.
Posted by: vlad at April 17, 2008 12:22 PM
I'm just making an observation of patterns that I see. Naturalist in the field do the same with wild animals.
If my observations are wrong, you as a human can explain to me why they are wrong. Animals can't and don't.
Ultimately, none of the theories presented here are going to help Jeff with his anger at the injustices he has experienced at the hands of women.
Posted by: Chrissy at April 17, 2008 12:38 PM
"When a man pays for a date, it's likely that the woman isn't interested in him." Now that is completely against everything you see in media, books or sociology texts. I'll dig up the reference tonight or tomorrow. On the first date when a women insists on paying for her half it's an indicator that she's usually not interested, if the male is the one that asked her out.
Quick reference from CNN money.
http://tiny.cc/TrwzL
One from the village voice that sites experts in the field
http://tiny.cc/ECJSc
I need Lexus Nexus which I have at home to get better Sociobiology reffs.
Posted by: vlad at April 17, 2008 12:51 PM
"sewed" sorry should be "skewed"
Posted by: vlad at April 17, 2008 12:53 PM
Nicole wrote: "A woman who splits the cost of the first date is most likely -not- interested."
Nicole, this was my experience too. One thing (one of the few things!) I ever managed to learn about the courtship game is that the process of settling the check on the first date goes like this:
1. I reach for the tab.
2. The woman may at this point offer to split the tab. I politely refuse. At this point one of two things happens:
a) She assents. That's a sign that she's interested, and her offer was to demonstrate that she's not a moocher. (Which is much appreciated.)
b) She insists. That's a lets-just-be-friends signal. (Which may suck if I was really into her, but at least it's an honest response and she isn't going to string me along.)
Posted by: Cousin Dave at April 17, 2008 1:42 PM
I went on a lot of first dates, and that was exactly my way of letting a guy know if I was into him or not. It's a subtle courtship dance, and you have to know the steps.
Posted by: Chrissy at April 17, 2008 3:30 PM
You're engaging in the psychological fallacy that is typical of modern female rhetoric. It's unfortunate.
Or perhaps she was making a joke. Made me laugh any way. Thx Chrissy!
Posted by: moreta at April 17, 2008 3:36 PM
And Cousin Dave, that sounds exactly right to me. It's the societal norm I was getting at in my long winded comments above. Whatever our animal instincts are, they are significantly affected by our cultural mating dance.
Posted by: moreta at April 17, 2008 3:40 PM
Exactly, it is a subtle dance. That's how it would work... I would offer to pay, and the man would counter-offer. If I was into him, I would let him pay, because I wouldn't mind feeling like I owed him something.
If I wasn't into him, I'd counter-insist.
"How should we split it?" is a woman's way of finding out where the guy stands. If he looks at the check and says, "Oh, well you had the red curry stirfry and the coke so you owe $15", he isn't into you.
If that happens, if the girl is really into the guy she might make excuses later like, "Maybe he's really into equal rights." Maybe he is, but odds are he isn't.
Not that I haven't met inexperienced guys who didn't know the dance steps. I have. But you can usually tell.
Posted by: Nicole at April 18, 2008 6:56 AM
This is long because I respond to everyone at once.
Or perhaps she was making a joke. Made me laugh any way (moreta).But then she writes,
Ultimately, none of the theories presented here are going to help Jeff with his anger at the injustices he has experienced at the hands of women (Chrissy).I used to think it rare to find women with no regard for rational standards of conversation. It's become apparent that many women can't reason without assuming some personal defect in the other party, inventing personal histories, and poisoning the well.
I'm just making an observation of patterns that I see. Naturalist in the field do the same with wild animals. If my observations are wrong, you as a human can explain to me why they are wrong (Chrissy).I have. Some posters, vlad for example, has challenged the facts and interpretations I have presented. It's passing strange to read a call for an explanation when I've already provided it. I think I'm entitled to assume you're evading my claims in favor of Rules for Radicals style rhetoric. You have a sympathetic audience, so it might work.
Please do not cloak your anecdotes in the mantle of science. If you've done statistical analysis of your results, and have good records, please post them and I will grant your claims the status of science. Otherwise, you have committed a grave category mistake.
vlad, I've throughly read your links, they aren't sociological research but rather the opinions of female journalists. One makes a serious logical error, the other misrepresents at least one piece of evolutionary biology evidence. How did the Lexus-Nexus search go?
It's the societal norm I was getting at in my long winded comments above. Whatever our animal instincts are, they are significantly affected by our cultural mating dance (moreta).Let's assume this is true. The culture of male-female relationships has changed, perhaps even changed radically, in the last sixty years. The we must not be surprised if the "cultural norm" of paying for dates will also change. There is no defense of the status quo in your claims; in fact, they tend to support my view.
It's a subtle courtship dance, and you have to know the steps (Chrissy). Exactly, it is a subtle dance. That's how it would work...(Nicole).I quite like the dance metaphor because it captures the real spirit of the thing. In dancing, men lead and women follow. In dating, this is not true. The offer--counter-offer process is very different than leading in a dance. When a man leads a dance turn out, there is no counter-offer, there is just a turn out.
Cousin Dave uses another metaphor, a game.
One thing (one of the few things!) I ever managed to learn about the courtship game is that the process of settling the check (Cousin Dave)Cousin Dave even gives us the form of the game, with the usual gambit--counter-gambit.
1. I reach for the tab.I have a few observations. First, the entire process is insincere and dishonest. Offering to pay when you don't intend to is insincere, and mere offer to pay without paying is not defense against mooching. Second, the female has all the power and none of the responsibilities. Third, it has every appearance of purchasing a woman's affections. There's a word for that.
2. The woman may at this point offer to split the tab. I politely refuse. At this point one of two things happens:
a) She assents. That's a sign that she's interested, and her offer was to demonstrate that she's not a moocher. (Which is much appreciated.)
b) She insists. That's a lets-just-be-friends signal. (Which may suck if I was really into her, but at least it's an honest response and she isn't going to string me along.)
Do people play Cousin Dave's game? Yes. But here's an alternate game.
1. Man asks woman for a first date.
2. Woman agrees.
3. Man explains that since they will effectively be two strangers meeting for the first time, it's a blind date. On a blind date, people pay for themselves. Therefore, on this first date, we will pay for ourselves. At this point one of two things happens:
(a) Woman refuses on one of several predictable grounds.
(b) Woman assents.
4. First date happens. If all goes well, goto step 5.
5. Man asks woman out, and pays. If all goes well, goto step 6.
6. Woman asks man out, and pays. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Now I submit that this game is better for men, just as good for sincere women, and very bad for professional daters. The man will know two things about the woman, before he spends money. He will know she is fair-minded, he will know she is flexible, he will know she has the potential to be giving. Sincere woman who are really interested, even to a small degree, in the man lose nothing. Professional daters are cut out right away.
I only have my own experience to vouch for it, but this game has been extremely effective for me. I spend most of my time and money on women who are actually interested in me, rather than lots of skeptical women who are just giving me "a shot." I get to spend time with women who pursue me as much as I pursue them. It's pretty fun.
Posted by: Jeff at April 18, 2008 8:22 AM
1. Man asks woman for a first date.
2. Woman agrees.
3. Man explains that since they will effectively be two strangers meeting for the first time, it's a blind date. On a blind date, people pay for themselves. Therefore, on this first date, we will pay for ourselves. At this point one of two things happens:
I've never been a "professional dater" and my goal in life is not to have other people pay for me, but to earn a living, as I do, and support myself, as I do.
That said, if a guy is so cheesy as to negotiate that I'm paying for my own Chardonnay before the date -- which I will do if I have no interest in him -- I already have no interest in him BEFORE the date.
You're not ruling out "professional daters," you're ruling out lots of women out of your paranoia that you might get screwed into paying for a glass of wine for a woman who's not interested in you. It's the cost of dating, Bub.
And again, I say that as a woman who previously had a poor boyfriend and who engineered it so I paid whenever we went to a place that didn't cost akin to Taco Bell. I'm not greedy, but I understand male/female psychology - that of men who aren't so terrified they're going to be screwed over...who I would never want anyway. I'm generous with my friends and anybody in my life. But men pursue and women are pursued. It's basic evolutionary psych, what works best psychologically -- and present in just about species out there with legs.
Sure, you can play it your way -- but don't think you're doing yourself any favors. Numerous fantastic women I know, including one who married a bartender, would not be interested in a guy who starts negotiating about the check before the first date.
Oh, so you pay on the date! Whoopee! It's a trick. Ick. Keep your paranoia to yourself. I'll go alone to the bar, buy my own Chardonnay, and meet a guy who doesn't direct his life around fear of being taken by somebody.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 18, 2008 8:37 AM
The majority of men, we call them Nice Guys, would like to marry and have kids and work for them. These guys are B-O-R-I-N-G and get nothing except insults. Loser; etc.
Oh really? You need to learn something about Nice Guys, bub, and that is that Nice Guys, more often than not, have ulterior motives. Nice Guys aren't Nice Guys because they want to be losers, doormats, and BFF with women, Nice Guys are Nice Guys because they want to get laid just as often as Bad Boys do. And the reason they don't is because they hide behind their Nice Guy persona in the hope that if the woman dating the Bad Boy could really see how nice the Nice Guy is, they'll choose the Nice Guy. Not so. Women don't want doormats and losers, they want men with a BACKBONE, who don't let people use them and walk all over them and then get all resentful and whiny when the women say "oh sorry I thought we were just friends." Know why? Because the Nice Guy is dishonest about what he really wants at first, by being "there" for the woman when the Bad Boy "treats her bad." He lets the woman get all secure in the knowledge that he's her "friend" and she can "come to him for anything" without telling her what he really wants is to throw her down and shag her silly. The Nice Guy is just as dishonest as the Bad Boy, only he's a helluva lot more subtle about it. I know this because I've dated both. My BF is neither a Nice Guy nor a Bad Boy. What he is, is a Real Man. He's kind, gentle, and caring. He's also a hunter; plus he has a good job and he works hard every day. He treats me well, treats my daughters well, treats everyone with respect, BUT he TAKES NO SHIT from NO ONE, including me! (Not that I give him any, but he always calls anyone and everyone out if he smells bullshit, and he's the most honest person I know.) Oh my, what a surprise. And it's really easy to be a Real Man. Just grow a backbone where your wishbone is. Be honest with everyone, including yourself. There's not much of that going around these days. In both sexes. And it's really too bad, because men like Jeff are bitter towards women for the wrong reasons. And women are bitter towards guys like Jeff, among other types, for the wrong reasons. I realize that it's so much easier to blame others for one's own misconceptions, but that does nothing to help one get over oneself, now does it?
Posted by: Flynne at April 18, 2008 10:21 AM
Nice Guys aren't Nice Guys because they want to be losers, doormats, and BFF with women, Nice Guys are Nice Guys because they want to get laid just as often as Bad Boys do. And the reason they don't is because they hide behind their Nice Guy persona in the hope that if the woman dating the Bad Boy could really see how nice the Nice Guy is, they'll choose the Nice Guy. Not so. Women don't want doormats and losers, they want men with a BACKBONE, who don't let people use them and walk all over them and then get all resentful and whiny when the women say "oh sorry I thought we were just friends." Know why? Because the Nice Guy is dishonest about what he really wants at first, by being "there" for the woman when the Bad Boy "treats her bad." He lets the woman get all secure in the knowledge that he's her "friend" and she can "come to him for anything" without telling her what he really wants is to throw her down and shag her silly. The Nice Guy is just as dishonest as the Bad Boy, only he's a helluva lot more subtle about it. I know this because I've dated both. My BF is neither a Nice Guy nor a Bad Boy. What he is, is a Real Man. He's kind, gentle, and caring.
Wise as hell, Flynne. I've got the same -- a boyfriend (Gregg) who's strong when he needs to be (he'll stand up to assholes), but gentle, kind, and caring.
I called him at 3am the other night during my Roquefort cheese hell. Why? Because he's the guy you call at 3am when there's a problem, and he makes that clear, and he would have been mad at me if I didn't call.
You know somebody loves you when they want to listen to you throwing up over the phone! (And no, it's not a fetish or anything; he didn't want me to hang up and call him back when I was done.)
Posted by: Amy Alkon 
at April 18, 2008 11:08 AM
"That said, if a guy is so cheesy as to negotiate that I'm paying for my own Chardonnay before the date ... I already have no interest in him BEFORE the date."
Thank you. That is precisely my take on it. If a guy approached me this way, I'd think he was either a tacky cheapskate or paranoid.
But then, is that surprising? Anyone who says things like this:
"You're engaging in the psychological fallacy that is typical of modern female rhetoric. It's unfortunate."
... has probably gotten lots of wedgies.
Posted by: Pirate Jo at April 18, 2008 12:44 PM
You're not ruling out "professional daters," you're ruling out lots of women out of your paranoia that you might get screwed into paying for a glass of wine for a woman who's not interested in you. It's the cost of dating, Bub (Amy).That isn't my position.
I'm not paranoid about paying for a glass of wine, I'm paranoid about wasting time and treasure on professional daters, an abundant class of women. I use a glass of wine as a tool avoid them. The glass of wine serves as a qualification method not an object of paranoia. Of course I'm ruling out lots of decent women. As a practical matter, all qualification methods will have that property. I'm not pretending that there are no trade-offs; instead, I think that the admitted trade-off is worth it.
That said, if a guy is so cheesy as to negotiate that I'm paying for my own Chardonnay before the date -- which I will do if I have no interest in him -- I already have no interest in him BEFORE the date (Amy)[irony alert]Applying your own reasoning above, "you're ruling out lots" of good men because of your paranoia over spending a few dollars for your own drink.[/irony alert] I think you can see that such an interpretation is uncharitable. I think your real position is that other trade-offs are better for both men and women. You probably have a point. We can discuss it, even if we don't agree. Maybe one of us will become convinced, who knows. You've convinced me of a few things before. One thing's for sure: obviously incorrect and uncharitable interpretations won't get us there.
But men pursue and women are pursued. It's basic evolutionary psych, what works best psychologically -- and present in just about species out there with legs (Amy).As I've written before, you usually state only part of the evidence. Consider this (I'm having a hard time finding sources that are not behind the JSTOR wall),
Just as women seek mates who can provide for them, men also seek mates who are able to provide for them and their offspring. Women have been shown to provide their male partners with gathered goods, clothing, and investment in their offspring (Kelly, 1995). Theoretically, women also provide their mate with emotional support and affection and an outlet for men to express support, which are known to have positive effects on men’s health and longevity (Brown, Nesse, Vinokur, & Smith, 2003).Female primates, including humans, attract males by showing adept provider skills too. Competition among females for males is well studied in all primate species including humans. It is true that males pursue females, it also true that females pursue males. Pursuit differences are both matters of degree and of kind. When it comes to spending money, it's a matter of degree not of kind.
Sure, you can play it your way -- but don't think you're doing yourself any favors. Numerous fantastic women I know, including one who married a bartender, would not be interested in a guy who starts negotiating about the check before the first date (Amy).I think I am doing myself a favor by accepting a more favorable tradeoff than the one you present. There are enough fantastic women around that missign a few here and there to avoid the abundant prefessional dater isn't a bad deal, IMHO.
Posted by: Jeff at April 18, 2008 12:56 PM
... has probably gotten lots of wedgies (Pirate Jo).Ah, the deployment of ridicule. Mustn't forget that. LOL
Posted by: Jeff at April 18, 2008 12:59 PM
"you're ruling out lots" of good men because of your paranoia over spending a few dollars for your own drink.
Wrong, I'm ruling out guys who are deeply worried about money -- to the point where they employ Error Management Theory incorrectly (making the least costly mating decision).
Furthermore, if some men do seek women who are able to provide in some way (one study, which I don't have time to read now and assess the validity of) they are unlikely to trade off beauty in a woman, a major male priority, to get a provider woman. Men, except for gigolos, are likely to go for a beautiful woman without as much earning capacity. Come on, go real world on me now, Jeff.
As with Jason, real sorry you're so nervous about this, but I can say with some certainty, every one of my writergirl friends would have turned you down for a date. Including the incredible, beautiful, big-hearted one who married the bartender (he was a bartender for most of his adult life and is now a successful business owner...but she had no expectation of that).
Your tradeoff is extremely unfavorable. In fact, I can now think of a beautiful, brilliant, evolutionary psychologist who would never go out with you. Two, in fact. They'd find you a cheesy jerk. And these are women who have supported themselves, and in one case, a daughter, their entire adult lives. And they're both fantastic people and friends of mine.
Posted by: Amy Alkon
at April 18, 2008 1:57 PM
... has probably gotten lots of wedgies.
Exactly, Pirate Jo. And I haven't met Pirate Jo in person, but from her posts here, if I were a man, she's exactly the kind of woman (the kind of smarts, personality, and character) I'd be interested in.
I have a fantastic boyfriend, and he's generous beyond belief. He takes me out to restaurants, but I've told him that doesn't matter to me (if ever he hits hard times). I mean, it's wonderful, and I'm kind of a princess (I find it painful traveling coach, etc.), but I'd drink a bottle of wine and open a pack of crackers with him on a park bench and be very happy.
And he once told me I'm his "one true happiness." I'm sweet to him, and always have his best interests at heart, even when he doesn't. Our only "fights" are about, well, okay, 1. ichat versus skype, and MT version Expression Engine, and then, more to the point here, 2. that he shouldn't schedule his trips around being home to take me to the airport and see me off on my trips, as I'm a big girl and have taken taxis for years, no problem.
That said, if, the first time we went for a drink, as total strangers who'd met at the Apple Computer store, he informed me that paying for my Orange Crush would be my responsibility -- he'd simply be some forgotten guy I once had a conversation with at the Apple Computer store.
But, he wouldn't have - because that's not what sweet, generous, chivalrous guys with good manners do. And lemme tell you, my boyfriend can spot a scam artist, male or female, from 100 paces.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 18, 2008 2:10 PM
So how many folks read every reply, except when you start one and realize it's clearly written as a performance art piece in which the writer channels a blue-collar yobbo from 1957. Then you scroll to the end, and it's always Jeff. I appreciate the dedication to art, and it's a brilliant creation of a stock character from our shared cultural past, but man is it tedious to read.
Posted by: Anathema at April 18, 2008 3:11 PM
Heh heh...love that, Anathema!
Posted by: Amy Alkon
at April 18, 2008 3:14 PM
Wrong, I'm ruling out guys who are deeply worried about money -- to the point where they employ Error Management Theory incorrectly (making the least costly mating decision) (Amy).Nope. I'm employing a corrective to the male tendency to overestimate female interest and the female tendency to broadcast false interest. Let's examine your claim. The null hypothesis is "She's hot for me." On my view, the hypothesis test is an affirmative response to a dutch date. On your view, it's an offer to pay after at the end of a date. I'm still in Type I error territory. I'm just conducting the hypothesis test earlier than you want. As I wrote, you may have good reason for this, but misstating the statistical nature of my claim isn't a good reason.
Men, except for gigolos, are likely to go for a beautiful woman without as much earning capacity. Come on, go real world on me now, Jeff.I concede with a qualification. The female provider behaviors shift in significance from material to more emotional.
he'd simply be some forgotten guy I once had a conversation with at the Apple Computer store (Amy).Then wouldn't you have committed a Type II error? I need not produce a litany of men I know who wouldn't date you. You would cast aside your boyfriend over the trivial matter of a dollar drink. Oh, sorry. Only guys get brought under scrutiny for that kind of paranoia. My bad.
As with Jason, real sorry you're so nervous about this, but I can say with some certainty, every one of my writergirl friends would have turned you down for a date...But, he wouldn't have - because that's not what sweet, generous, chivalrous guys with good manners do. (Amy).So? You want me to give you a list of guys who think I'm crazy because I think you're the bomb? Isn't this just a backhanded way for you to cast insult?
Besides, chivalry is just benevolent sexism. It's fine for a guy to behave that way if the woman adheres to a similarly duty-laden code towards him. But in fact, women want men to be 18th century gentlemen while women are 21st century feminists. Make up your mind please. I can spot a self-serving scammer at 100 paces too.
Posted by: Jeff at April 18, 2008 3:30 PM
Then you scroll to the end, and it's always Jeff. I appreciate the dedication to art, and it's a brilliant creation of a stock character from our shared cultural past, but man is it tedious to read (Anathema).Oh, you should read my other posts. They're REALLY tedious. All arguments against female nonsense are tedious, aren't they?
Heh heh...love that, Anathema! (Amy)You do love the strangest things.
Posted by: Jeff at April 18, 2008 3:35 PM
I'm not a 21st century feminist. Furthermore, Jeff, while I find your posts in other areas to be informative and interesting, your aren't proving your point on this issue. See all the women you're missing -- great women who'd be happy to treat you to plenty -- just not on the first or second date.
Posted by: Amy Alkon
at April 18, 2008 4:14 PM
he'd simply be some forgotten guy I once had a conversation with at the Apple Computer store (Amy).Then wouldn't you have committed a Type II error? I need not produce a litany of men I know who wouldn't date you.
But, my boyfriend wouldn't be a guy who'd nickel and dime a girl over paying for something. And his behavior reflected that.
As for the "litany of men" you know who wouldn't date me, I have never had any guy set up payment rules before the date. Perhaps because, while not Angelina Jolie, I'm at a level where guys know I have plenty of options and they just can't get away with it.
Date girls who are desperate for a man, or don't take very good care of themselves or have much going for them (or who have low self-esteem), and s