"she's just a leech with lipgloss"

:fallsoverlaughing:

that would explain some of the scars...

"I gave my love a cherry..."

"Charming guy with guitar: I gave my love a cherry / That had no stone / I gave my love a chicken / That had no bones / I gave my love a story / That had no end / I gave my...
Bluto: [grabs the guitar and smashes it against the wall] Sorry."

If I was back in the dating pool, I would not ask a woman out on a dinner date until after she had made me a dinner at her place. I have given my share of free meals out already.

First date ends with some nice home-cooked vittles, but first we cruise real slow like down the highway to see what that critter of the day is. If she's hot, i'll let her drive my truck while i hold the flashlight.

And cubic zirconia is invented.

Why are male spiders bringing the female spiders gifts at all? This is outrageous! It isn't enough that the male is also the "dinner" portion of "sex before dinner," but she wants a gift, too?

Suffer, you evil, cannibalistic, conniving BITCHES! You want to make your next meal out of ME, I'm not bringing you a present for it!

Amy, what is the matter with you??? Why aren't you protesting the disgusting abuse of males in arachnid relationships? You're usually on top of gender-based discrimination against males and females both, but you dropped the ball on this one.

She wants a gift before sex and dinner afterwards? HA!

And to add mortal injury to insult, she wants him to BE the dinner!

"And to add mortal injury to insult, she wants him to BE the dinner!"

Teenage boys around the globe are saying, "Dude, I don't see the problem."

Amy, comeon! The "asker pays" rule is bupkiss. It's a cheap scam (pun intended). Let's address this:

Plenty of people at work or friends ask each other out to lunch with no expectation that their thoughtfulness is an instant requirement to foot the bill. Unless they've insisted upon a specific restaurant, etc. that implies that this is a special outing, it's dutch and even then, a considerate person SINCERELY offers to pay their share.

In addition, everyone knows that when the "asker pays" rule doesn't apply on a date, such as a fixerup or a blind date, etc., nearly all women will still expect the man to pay including the women who use the "asker pays" rationalization.

In addition, asker pays is just lumping one demand onto another one like saying that the person who does childcare should also do all the cooking and cleaning. It would be like a man handing a woman a broom when he lets her in the apartment. Which begs the question: What kind of mans finds this kind of passive-aggressive game-playing behavior attractive? Obviously, men with low-self-esteems or desperate which doesn't endear them much to women.

The only way for a man to recover his self-esteem is to be honest that this equality stuff just doesn't work.

In my view, regardless of the relationship between two people, Americans in general don't really spend money on people - whether they're male or female - with no strings attached. For that reason, when a man asks me out, I always try to suggest something free.

If a man doesn't feel like spending money on a woman he may never see again (understandable, especially if it's happened more than once) a far more gracious move might be "how about a walk in the park?" Or: "Want to see that (free) exhibit?"

All in all, especially with the economy, I think women and men alike should work a lot harder at learning to appreciate each other's company without any money being spent. At least for the first two dates, anyway. For more on that, see the dating article in Amy Dacyczyn's book "The Complete Tightwad Gazette."

Finally, it seems to me, when you're the man "invited," it's as easy as saying: "Sounds nice. Are we going Dutch?" (Few women, I hope, would splutter and say: "I thought YOU would pay for ME.") If you don't want to go Dutch, you can say: "Sounds nice, but I'm afraid we'll have to go out some other time - I'm saving money for X." Then, at least, the woman is free to say "no, I mean I want to treat you to lunch." IF she means that.

P.S. What makes me mad, though, is wedding couples and birthday "hosts" who expect "guests" to pay for the privilege of just BEING there. Ass Miss Manners said: "If you can't afford champagne, serve punch. If you can't afford punch, serve water. But serve it graciously."

Please understand that I'm not opposed to potluck - just to mooching. From an advice column nearly 5 years ago:

"(Those) who object to potluck dinners should be aware that there is a difference between a dinner that everyone agrees will be shared -- and one to which guests are invited, only to be asked to supply the hostess's menu. I agree that the latter is inappropriate."

In addition, asker pays is just lumping one demand onto another one
_______________________

Not if the man refuses to ask/pay more than once. In other words, of course the role of host should alternate. However, as I said in another post, couples should really look more often into FREE outings - but that's not an excuse to let people spend more money on you than you spend on them, of course.

BTW, Miss Manners once wrote (in the 1990s?) that if you get invited to go on a Dutch outing, unless the other person insists on paying extra, it should be 50/50 even if the other person is richer because "it is vulgar to notice how much money other people make."

I do expect a man to pay, even if it's a blind date, online dating, or meeting on Mars.

Now if I were a lesbian I would probably always be the payer because I would assume the more dominant role. But I'm not a lesbian, I'm straight woman and despite living in the modern age I still expect a man to pay on the first date.

A first date should be something lighthearted. One man offered to cook for me on the first date, I said no. And we just went for coffee. I had a big gulping cup of tea. He paid for me a total of $2.

Now I must admit that I would rather have a man that pays all the time. I think the cutest thing in the world is that Gregg feels aghast if Amy even suggests the idea of paying for an outing. Very cute. It's what turns us girls on. But I'm not unreasonable, face it we are all broke in this economy.

To PK, I would add: If YOU'RE the one inviting the other person to lunch, even if it's just your same-sex coworker, do NOT assume the other person is going to be happy about going Dutch, even at a cheap restaurant. That is, some people just don't eat out because even $10 meals can be a big deal in their budget. You just don't know. Maybe the other person just had a financial crisis that's being kept private. You can't tell. Tread cautiously.

The so-called alternating host is another another attempt to still pretend that most straight women are capable of equality when they're not (more on this later). The woman is still sticking the risks on the man and getting him to demonstrate his role as breadwinner. OK, fine. But then saying "asker pays" is kind of like a man saying that he believes in equality and dodging out whenever she asks him to help clean around the kitchen. Either he's a chump OR he's got his own games a-playing. This is why it's now consider a joke that women like "bad boys". They either have trained men to be chumps and unattractive OR they wind up getting played themselves.

Let's consider the example someone used of a wedding reception or party. How many people would show up at a wedding empty handed? As Kim Kardashian knows, weddings are often profitable if they have polite relatives and friends. My wife would consider it unthinkable to go to a person's home for dinner or to meet them to go out at their expense and not bring flowers, alcohol AND a small gift usually for everyone in the household. True tradition demanded that when a gentleman caller came to visit a woman to court her, the family invited him in and not to grill him. They'd feed HIM. Of course, the idea of this was that he wouldn't be grabbing at her stuff while trying to get her drunk. Of COURSE, he brought a gift with him. See how that works?

OK, back to the point I made about equality. Purplepen has a perfect right to what she prefers. If she prefers men to want to pay for things in an era of supposed women's equality, that's her choice. And I personally consider so-called women's equality a waste of time including women's right to vote. I laugh when politically correct people get all shocked when I say that AND defend the opinion (note, I don't drop that as a bomb. It comes up in discussions such as this.) If women want men to behave more like gentlemen, then they need to act more like ladies.

Some women are certainly committed to equality and are true believers (usually crazy redheads, but crazy redheads really are in a world all by themselves. I say that as a compliment.) We live in a broken culture.

The so-called alternating host is another cheap trick. The woman is still sticking the risks on the man and getting him to demonstrate his role as breadwinner. OK, fine. But let's be honest about it AND accept the consequences.

Let's consider the example someone used of a wedding reception or party. How many people would show up at a wedding empty handed? As Kim Kardashian knows, weddings are often profitable if they have polite relatives and friends. My wife would consider it unthinkable to go to a person's home for dinner or to meet them to go out at their expense and not bring flowers, alcohol AND a small gift usually for everyone in the household.

Certainly, we're all "turned on" by a relationship where we get what we like and the other person exists to please us. This is not how real, long term relationships work though.

Lenona, I chuckled a bit at that advice. Let's conduct this thought experiment: How many times have you asked MEN co-workers or friends out for lunch and had them expect you to foot the whole bill or they didn't sincerely offer to go dutch or even pay the whole thing? Note that exceptions to this are if it's their birthday or it's a favorite expensive restaurant of yours, etc.

Take the fingers of one hand and count. Tell me if you reach 1.

"Certainly, we're all "turned on" by a relationship where we get what we like and the other person exists to please us. This is not how real, long term relationships work though."

Nobody on here even mentioned the idea of another person existing simply to please them. That's ridiculous. I wouldn't be turned on by that. I'm turned on by a reciprocal relationship. Perhaps a man pays for dinner and a woman does something equally sweet for him (maybe cooking him dinner).

"How many times have you asked MEN co-workers or friends out for lunch and had them expect you to foot the whole bill or they didn't sincerely offer to go dutch or even pay the whole thing?"

Women don't like to pay for other WOMEN or MEN.
Women always prefer to go dutch when going out with co-workers/or friends.

Men on the other hand often times like to pay for everyone, and they like to alternate.

Purplepen, nobody here is surprised by what you just said. I just said that this asker pays, reciprocation or him just buying a drink was just bupkiss and you largely agreed by blurting out that you need men to men to pay for you. Period. Fine. But don't then try to weasel around and pretend that there's some kind of fair reciprocation going on where you (maybe) cook a meal after you've run his W-4 through Equifax. (Another hilarious claim. Like how many of the women who say that they're doing this really do cook that meal?)

When someone engages in a denial, it says a lot to them that they have unresolved issues. I invite you to take that observation to heart consciously.

"And then, of course, there's the ultimate courtship gift, the male praying mantis letting the female praying mantis eat his head during sex."

Don't forget those super-cute darlings of the feathered set, the penguin.

Dressed in a tuxedo, he brings her - a rock!

If I ask a gal out for an initial meeting/date, I pay. If she asks me out for an initial meeting/date, she should pay. If I ask a friend/co-worker out for lunch, I specify if I will pay or not. My preference with regular dinner/lunch meets with friends is, I pay one time they pay the next. Unless my friend doesn't have any money then I pay their way every time I ask them out. And they do the same, or just invite me over.

I have to say, that as I've gotten older, I find personality does count. I find a woman who has a good or great personality becomes more attractive over time.

"Men and women are not the same, and who pays corresponds to their evolved differences -- same as how men care more about women's looks than women care about theirs."

Amy, do you have any kind of statistics or even anecdotal observations to justify that claim? For example, will a woman date a slightly shorter man more likely than a man will date a slightly overweight woman? I have friends who are male model types and they tell me that women "pay" for them all the time via getting free business class upgrades (and requests for their phone number) and women buying stuff for them all the time. Some have never "asked out" a woman in their life.

So perhaps it's just the opposite: Men pay because most men aren't that physically attractive to women kind of like how butch lesbians usually get stuck paying (whether they "asked" or not).

OK, Amy, I should have read further. My apologies. You came up with a study but it measured the wrong primary metric. Another study I saw on 20/20 had girls even as young as 12 refusing to find a short man attractive even when he was dressed as a doctor next to a tall guy dressed as a fast food worker.

Seriously though, the claim that men want skinny fashion models is based upon WOMEN'S obsession with fashion shows and magazines put out by non-straight men.

"So, expect the woman to pay for the first date when you pick her off the Internet without requiring a photo or when you talk to all the ugliest girls you see to see which one has the best personality."

Tried that. Didn't work.

Actually, the girls that appeared to play the fewest games, had the least financial gift requirements, and were not as demanding about the height thing were petite and/or athletic. One was a clone (including she spoke French) of Juliette Binochet (but she smoked, bleah!)

I was at work about 2 years ago hearing two women gossip. One was about 25 pounds overweight and the other easily 40 pounds overweight. They had the manners of a sailor. One worked as a secretary and the other had a mid-range office job. They were gossipping in a cubicle that we could overhear about how they both wanted a 6 foot tall guy, driving a Lexus, and owning his own house. One was a divorced woman in her mid 30's and the other was 25 whose oversensitive about her weight.

The states is full of women with very high demands and expectations and men with very low cultural expectations. Perhaps it's because only 10% of Americans have a passport and see what the real world is like. After having sat in a Swiss cafe and seen dozens of pretty girls walk by every hour, I just don't raise my eyebrows that often here.

BTW, Amy, nice outfit in your profile photo. You'd look prettier in green though.

Matt, take a shot of Stolichnaya and then answer this question for me:

If a decent looking woman (not exceptionally pretty but ok looking) you had met said that you seem like a nice person she'd like to get to know better and that if you had time could you go out for coffee...

Would you really be expecting her to pay for your coffee? Would you dump her if she didn't run up to pay, all other factors being ok? If she turned out to be a great person, would you offer to pay?

Ohhh! Amy! The shaming ploys emerge! "Whiner!" I feel you'd throw that $7 drink in my face!

Here's the thing: Most ugly people, men or women, have gotten mates if they worked at it and brought something to the table. Plenty of ugly women out there are married. In fact... I'd have to say there's a glut of pretty, successful professional women in their 30's.

That's just it: By the time I reached my 30's, I had a choice of clock ticking women who expected me to buy that drink so it wasn't a reptilian brain decision but rather a no-brainer: Why should I have to settle?

By the same token, if a girl is young and pretty and wants a tall, successful man who supports her notion of equality good for her. While it lasts. Perhaps in a way, I was lucky that I got to spend my 20's with the hard lessons with the opportunities ahead rather than the other way around...

"Men care vastly about women's beauty. Women care about men's status and earning power, and probably because they needed men to protect them in the Stone Age, they care that a man is tall. (Symmetry, another concern, suggests one is parasite free.)"

And a woman's beauty has nothing to do with her health and parasites (or lack of?)

A rationalization is not the same as a denial. Women are just as shallow about looks as men in addition to traditional breadwinning demands.

Why is that so hard for you to admit?

What this means is that most modern American women have priced themselves out of the market. Apart from the Alpha males who are both tall and rich, the rest of the women have to fight for Beta scraps. Let's consider your observations about rudeness of people and how government bureaucrats are power hungry gropers. In a world where status is King and Queen, should we be surprised? Our society, at least up to 1950 or so, was based upon empowering the Beta male. The most decorated warrior of WWII was Audie Murphy, a 5'5" midget. Today, what motivation is there for such a man to be a hero, to be polite to strangers, and to work to death 60 hours a week to support a family while his wife gets a comfy office job?

PK said:

Lenona, I chuckled a bit at that advice. Let's conduct this thought experiment: How many times have you asked MEN co-workers or friends out for lunch and had them expect you to foot the whole bill or they didn't sincerely offer to go dutch or even pay the whole thing?
___________________________

OK, maybe I wasn't clear. I'm talking about what INVITERS should or shouldn't do.

Meaning: If you already HAVE your lunch with you and you say to a co-worker "why don't you get your lunch and we'll eat in the park," that's one thing.

Most co-workers understand perfectly well that restaurant outings are almost always going to be Dutch. However, if they can't afford it, AND you didn't bother to find out in ADVANCE whether they're in the habit of buying take-out or restaurant meals (even cheap ones can cost 10 times what cheap groceries can), you're potentially putting them in an awkward position when you ask them to join you in splitting the bill. (And, as many of us know, it's not just that people from some cultures take "saving face" very seriously, it's also that Americans who are poor are very sensitive about it.)

So, bottom line is, when you ask a co-worker - or another person - to go Dutch, you're risking that person's irritation, at least. UNLESS you already know that person does buy takeout food on a regular basis.

Side note: Of course, if you're being treated and you don't know your inviter well, it's not a good idea to accept dinner at the Ritz when you could go somewhere else - assuming you can't afford to treat anyone to the Ritz yourself.

"People try for the best they can get (and sometimes overstrive) and then settle for what they can get vis a vis what they have to offer."

Did you ever see the film "Up in the Air?" It's amazing. I love the scene where the alpha 23 year old female talks to a 40 year old alpha female in front of a character played by George Clooney about "settling."

Another funny story is that one time a friend and I were out walking at the train station and saw a pretty girl working at a kiosk. If we weren't both married, we would have gone in and talked to her and marveled that if we were women and things were reversed, the good looking guy working at the cell phone booth probably wouldn't get much attention from someone in our socio-economic backgrounds.

Where this ties in is that if a man survives his 20's and doesn't sink down into a hole of despair or low self-esteem, he can "settle" pretty good. But a woman who goes through her 20's wanting superman and doesn't have much to bring to the table, so to speak, beyond a job that's about empowering her independence, really has a difficult road ahead of her.

Which brings this question to mind: If feminism and women's equality as about empowering women, doesn't it appear to be doing just the opposite for most of them?

Lenona, let's wrap this up and observe that "asker pays" really doesn't apply in most cases we go through in life. If we meet someone at work and we're about to go for a burger and say to them: "hey, what are you doing for lunch? Want to come along?" we both know that the other guy isn't salivating at the prospect of a free burger. If it's a blind date and there is no asker, the woman is still going to expect the guy to pay. So just drop it already. Horse! Dead! Whip!

"The notion that it's "shallow" for men to care about looks or for women to care about a man's status and potential is just silly. They do, and there are evolutionary reasons these things are part of our human psychology."

You didn't answer my question or even present the right one yourself. You tried to redefine women's desire for looks in men via height as just another part of the success model. But it's not. Plenty of 6 footers out there are flipping burgers and most successful women won't be interested in them.

In addition, you've claimed that ugly women were willing to "pay" but I doubt you have a study showing this. From personal and anecdotal experience, ugly women are willing to "pay" their own way but nowhere near the kind of offerings that ugly men go through.

Calling me a whiner again isn't going to change the fact that I have said that I paid for the dates for the pretty woman because that's what women, including the ugly woman, presented to me. So the paradigm isn't rich men paying for good looking women. It's men paying for women. Period. Asker pays or not. And looks and market conditions are a serious factor in how much he has to pay. If he has to pay, and market conditions are in his favor, he will pick the pretty woman. But don't say it's in our heads and reptilian programming please. It's just the path women made us go on. Thanks.

"Let's dispense with the fraudulent notion that paying or not paying is the same between friends or coworkers as it is between dates."

I hate to try to correct a smart redhead whose far more literate than me, but I do love to impress. Amy, is dispense a proper word to use in this context? Wouldn't dispense mean to distribute rather than drop?

Anyways, that notion was dispensed by a broad generalization that "asker pays" is some universal non-sexist mannered principle that women were sincerely following or applied when they demanded men pay for them.

Let's dispense with the fraudulent notion that paying or not paying is the same between friends or coworkers as it is between dates.
_______________________

All I'm saying is, I don't like it when ANYONE, male or female, assumes again and again that I'm willing and able to split the bill on things that cost a lot more than the home-entertainment version would cost - whether it's food or movies. "Little" expenses add up fast. Just because other people don't mind living high while running up their credit card debt doesn't mean I should have to do that just to keep my friends. Which is why I mentioned FREE outings, upthread.

BTW, on the subject of blind dates, Miss Manners wrote "again, someone had to set it up." Not sure if she meant a third party should pay for the date. But blind dates do usually involve a third party, I assume.

And, if I invite one person or a dozen people over for dinner, sure, they offer to bring something, usually, but I wouldn't dream of letting them bring anything more than a bottle of wine - or letting them cook anything, because as hostess, I'm supposed to offer HOSPITALITY, which means taking care of all the hard or expensive stuff. As I quoted earlier, potlucks are only polite when the GROUP decides to have one - not when it's one person's idea. If money is tight, a host can at least serve bread and soup - and the guests shouldn't find it hard to reciprocate on that level, in the future.

@PK
In regards to whether or not a man will get that cooked meal, my husband paid for almost all of our outings while we were dating(there were a few where I invited, he said "I can't afford to go out this week," and I said "Don't worry, my treat," (Lenona is right, it does work out pretty well)). He still usually pays when we go out for dinner. But we usually eat at home now, and I've made every meal to date.
I never offered to make him a meal while we were dating, but I know women who do offer, and it's usually an actual offer, as in, "Why don't you come to my place this Friday, and I'll rent a movie and make you dinner," rather than some vague offer of sometime in the future.
The point is, if he was looking for equality in break down of responsibilities, or just looking for a home-cooked meal, over our lifetime, he is likely going to get many many times more than the number of meals he had to pay for at restaurants.

"Lenona, let's wrap this up and observe that "asker pays" really doesn't apply in most cases we go through in life. "

I haven't generally found that to be true, though. Nearly every experience I've had with friends and co-workers is that either you go dutch, or (if you know each other well and see each other frequently) you take turns. As far as being asked out, the few times that I've been asked out on a blind or first date, I always offered to pay anyway, on general principle.

I did once have a weird experience... one place I worked at, a female co-worker that I didn't know well asked me to go to lunch with her. She spent the lunch time bending my ear about how much she hated the place we were working (I had only been there a month), and then at the end of the hour... she expected me to pay for hers, and she got irate that I didn't immediately jump to do so. Needless to say, I didn't go to lunch with her again.

I usually pay for the first date, and why not? I can afford it. After that, if you make as much or more than me, I expect you to show some form of equality. Or have lots of hot sex with me so I forget about the details. Women today, make as much as men, in general, and anyone who say different is full of bullshit.

PK: But don't say it's in our heads and reptilian programming please. It's just the path women made us go on.

Women want, and expect, men to pay for them because that benefits women. As a general rule, people don't want to give up benefits they have.

This is how life works. Deal with it or accept the consequences. Don't whine about it. It make you look bad.

Likewise, women shouldn't whine about it when men don't do housework. It just makes women look bad. Most guys don't like doing housework. Women may not think that's fair but that's just how life works.

"Women want, and expect, men to pay for them because that benefits women. As a general rule, people don't want to give up benefits they have."

This is largely a restatement of the we all have reptile brains theory. Makes sense except for one thing: It doesn't apply to men. Western men gave women, and others for that matter, the right to vote and human rights. At least until our society "evolves" into something non-western...

And it doesn't really always benefit women. I have heard women gripe that they would like what many men have: To have a good looking, intelligent, fun spouse but they aren't willing to do what men do: Ask that person out and pay that person's way.

In this game of chicken, I'll admit: I blinked. I got a great wife. Millions of successful women are going to die alone and childless "taking one for the team."

"Most guys don't like doing housework. Women may not think that's fair but that's just how life works."

Jim, that's probably the reason why we're hearing all these complex rationalizations for women expecting men to pay (asker pays) rather than simply the woman says she's sexist because it suits her. Not making this up: A woman friend told me that the way she expected it to work is that old fashioned chivalry is in place when the man pays for dinner dates and they go to equality after they marry and co-mingle funds and he gets half the dishes. If he objects, she says: "Asker pays, chump."

And ok, they win much of the time but this means they have to live with just one thing: their own conscience. Despite all the talk we heard from the 80's about how women were oppressed by sexism, blah blah blah, it really turns out that women loved it all along and that western men weren't oppressors. They were fools. Is such a man the "real" man that these women yearn for even if he's tall and wealthy? Or is he like Archie Bunker who says it like it is?

"All I'm saying is, I don't like it when ANYONE, male or female, assumes again and again that I'm willing and able to split the bill on things that cost a lot more than the home-entertainment version would cost - whether it's food or movies."

First off, Happy Thanksgiving Lenona. Ok, if you hate being expected to go for dutch treat, imagine if your "friends" were refusing to ask you out in order to ensure they were in a power play to stick the check on you every time.

In modern times, when young men can lose their job for "offending a lady" when said lady curses like a sailor and she earns as much, or even more than he does, getting stuck with the check when you have to count your pennies to pay the rent is a very powerful early life lesson in how much we can trust women to live up to their principles. As I said, I didn't need a reptile brain to marry a pretty lady. It just turns out that the non-pretty ones didn't have anything more to offer. Literally.

PK, that actually wasn't the restatement you saw it as. I'm not saying women want and expect men to pay for them because because they are captives of their reptilian brains or have a biological mandate (Amy's belief.) I'm saying women want and expect this because they benefit from it. It's self-interest.

And it doesn't really always benefit women. I have heard women gripe that they would like what many men have: To have a good looking, intelligent, fun spouse but they aren't willing to do what men do: Ask that person out and pay that person's way.

Women (most, not all) aren't willing to ask men out because the potential cost (being rejected by a man) is greater than the potential benefit (connecting with a man.)

Jim, that's probably the reason why we're hearing all these complex rationalizations for women expecting men to pay (asker pays) rather than simply the woman says she's sexist because it suits her.

When it comes to men and women dating, "whoever asks, pays" isn't complex, but it's disingenuous. "Whoever has the vagina, doesn't pay" is more honest.

But yes, "because it suits her" is the reason. When tradition doesn't benefit women (e.g. men earning more than women, men being hired and promoted over women, men not doing housework) then they are opposed to it. When tradition does benefit women, as in dating, then they're all for it. Not all women, mind you. It's not a coincidence that the most strident feminist I knew (who also happened to be very hot) was also very adamant about sharing expenses on dates and doing things non-traditionally (our our first date, she insisted on paying for our drinks.)

The men who whine that they might have to buy a girl drinks on the first date are men you don't want to be dating.

And, from that, it follows that women who whine about having to do all the housework are women you don't want to be married to.

Again, women are STUPID to ask men out because men will tell they have no problem with that but tend to devalue the woman who does. Heather Trexler Remoff wrote a terrific book...

Did Ms. Remoff look at couples where the woman asked the man out and the man asked the woman out and find out what percentage of each ended up getting married?

Did Ms. Remoff compare marriages that resulted from women asking men out and men asking women out and find what percentage of each described their relationships as "excellent" or "very good"?

If I was a woman and a guy asked me out, even just for coffee, and I accepted because he seemed interesting and I found him attractive, I'd offer, sincerely, to pay for the coffees in order to show my appreciation rather than just sitting there expecting to be paid for because I have a vagina. And if the guy accepted my offer by saying "thanks, that's very thoughtful of you", I wouldn't think any less of him for it.

But then, I don't have the sense of entitlement that most women seem to have.

The important things for me would be: did I like him? Was he smart and interesting? Was he interested in what I had to say? Did we have the same sense of humor? Did we have common interests?

Not: did he pay for me?

“Again, women are STUPID to ask men out because men will tell they have no problem with that but tend to devalue the woman who does. Heather Trexler Remoff wrote a terrific book that explains this over and over.”

This statement seems to be missing a few things. First off, the “terrific book” that you are talking about is called “Sexual Choice A Woman’s Decision: Why and How Women choose the Men they Do as Sexual Partners”. It was published in 1984 so it is a bit out of date at this point (just like most social science from ~25 years ago). It should also be noted that the ideas Remoff discusses in this book are “confirmed” by her “in depth” interviews with a collection of 66 women. In other words, the author confirms that sexual choice is indeed a woman’s decision by gathering the opinions and life experience of women. One would think that gathering the opinions and life experience of men would be relevant to support this contention that women are the ones making of all the important mating decisions, but apparently not.

So apparently all women are “STUPID to ask men out” because 66 other women said so. In addition all of those men who say they have no problem with being asked out are liars because 66 women said so.

Is this really what goes for solid logic and argumentation these days? Obviously there are serious holes in this kind of reasoning.

"Women (most, not all) aren't willing to ask men out because the potential cost (being rejected by a man) is greater than the potential benefit (connecting with a man.)"

I pointed out that in modern times, it's a greater risk for men to ask out women than vice-versa. On the contrary, it's quite easy for women comparatively to find a great mate if they just do a little footwork. Dating sites now see a even gender ratio, for instance. And also, as I said, (many, not all) women are not benefitting from playing that game of chicken.

I have male friends who could be considered male models and they got asked out all the time by both women who were pretty and those who were plain looking. Some of them had big heads about it just as women do but they were polite when they rejected women. Women friends told me that they did NOT "play with the team" when it came to good looking, successful men. There simply is now too much competition and lack of such men and too many women crossing the picket line.

It's mathematically and statistically impossible for women to be "equal" to men in the workplace and have similar standards of looks (no matter how they are rationalized) and STILL expect men to live up to 1950's standards. This is why many women are winding up alone. That's "winning" like Charlie Sheen is "winning."

Brian: In addition all of those men who say they have no problem with being asked out are liars because 66 women said so.

Amy: Again, if your balls are so tiny that it's a huge deal for you to ask a woman on a date, you don't deserve to go out with one. Go home, rub Miracle Gro on them every night and maybe you'll find it in you to score yourself a lady before you're too old to remember that you want one.

Brian, you'll have to excuse Amy. She always loves to set up and knock down a straw man on this topic. When a guy says, as you did above, that many men have no problem being asked out, Amy always twists this into men not being willing to ask women out and/or insisting that women ask them out and then inevitably segues into one of her amusing rants about small balls.

Amy, I know women pretty well. You love compliments. Your long red hair contrasts wonderfully with your complexion. I bet you smiled when you read that. And I hope I'm not offending you in this discussion but even so, I can tell I'm butchering some sacred cows. If you don't wish to go further, please do let me know.

That's the kind of man I am. I can walk away politely from a heated discussion because by then I think that people already have gotten 99% of the point. We can disagree without hating each other. This works in relationships too.

Your statement "And if a guy doesn't have the balls to" sounds like a classic shaming ploy. Secure men by definition don't fall for them and women who use those challenges are also insecure in their own femininity. That is NOT a compliment and I make that observation with trepidation because I respect your opinion and don't want to alienate you. A secure woman doesn't need a man to engage in such stunts just as a real man doesn't need to dump a loyal aging wife to replace her with a hot cheerleader to impress his friends. Note that being insecure doesn't make someone a bad person. We all have insecurities and this is why relationships are a great way to build up our strength as we lean upon each other.

In my personal experience, I have found pretty, sophisticated women to play the least number of games. They don't have anything to prove. And in most cases, I never had to ask them out. They were strong enough to express their emotions to me and barely beat me to the punch. They inspired me to express myself rather than shame me into saying something.

Jim observes: "And, from that, it follows that women who whine about having to do all the housework are women you don't want to be married to."

Jim, by the time you know that in a marriage, it's too late. Amy has talked about the woman-need-to-be-pretty and men-need-to-make-money (but pretends like men's looks don't matter) paradigm but I'll offer this opportunity: There are non-pretty women out there who have gotten great men doing what non-good looking and poor men have done: Worked hard to meet people. Rejection stinks, but you improve your odds of meeting someone by engaging in it. I know women who are 4s who were aggressive and made it pay off for them. Let's go back to housework: Post-feminism has shown that problems between the sexes exist because women can't let go of sexism. Us men have shown we're ready to let women have equality in the workplace and do housework and even date plain women. It's their move.

It's stupid to ask men out because of our evolved psychology that's still with us. From 1.8 million years ago, give or take a few years. Men evolved to pursue women.

And men who are more evolved don't mind (or even like) women asking them out and women who are more evolved are willing to ask men out.

Rejection stinks, but you improve your odds of meeting someone by engaging in it.

Absolutely. I think meeting the right person is, to a large extent, a numbers game. The more people you meet/ask out, the more likely you are to find Mr. or Ms. Right.

I know women who are 4s who were aggressive and made it pay off for them.

I've no doubt that's true, PK (although Amy has a very difficult time accepting that since she's so fiercely wedded to her men-don't-value-women-who-ask-them-out belief.)

Women should not ask men out because it is a risky tactic...

Duh. Of course there's a risk. It's risky when a man asks a woman out too. When a man asks a woman out, there's no guarantee she's going to end up liking him, or he'll end up liking her. This is just like the discussion we had before. You, and other women, seem to feel that if a woman were to ask a man out, there should be some kind of certainty that the guy is going to be crazy about her and that it's going to work out happily ever after.

And if a guy doesn't have the balls to squeak out "Will you go out with me?" I have no interest in him as a man.

Well, that's because you're stuck in the past. You're unable to move beyond viewing a man as worthy unless he's a hunter. Women who are willing to ask a man out are more evolved than you.

Jim, I remember something that's now such an anachronism that most young people aren't even aware of it: Sadie Hawkins day. A day where girls were encouraged to ask boys out. Needless to say, it wasn't a monumental failure because boys didn't like being asked out. Girls simply didn't like doing it.

I wouldn't say it's a numbers game. I know a poor chap who asked out 100 girls and was rejected each time. He wasn't a bad looking guy. It just turned out he was a normal college student on a campus with a 3:1 single male to female ratio. The poor guy didn't stand a chance. Heck, traditional dating is largely a stupid game. I met someone online. I don't know any guy who has gotten married by asking out a woman at work or via friends on a formal date. That golden goose has been killed and stuffed.

Amy, as Jim points out, all ask-outs carry a risk of rejection and the other person not valuing them. It's not a claim of biological equality but rather a logical observation. For men, the risk is logically somewhat higher since so many women like to go out for free meals or drinks. So the risk for women, those 4's I referred to, are somewhat lower. In the meantime, my wife recently asked me to set up some of her friends with guys at work and I had no eligible bachelors. Yes, there's a risk in chicken that if you swerve you lose face. But the risk of "losing" by not swerving is a lot higher...

Our evolved psychology has not changed, and you might like to believe you won't devalue a woman who pursues you but it is likely you will.

You insist on simplistically painting everyone with the same broad brush but people aren't all the same. Some people are more evolved than others. As I've said before, I've no doubt that some men would value a woman less if she were to ask them out. And these men would be more traditional, lesser-evolved men, men who haven't been able to move beyond the "me hunter, me must hunt" mentality. But other men aren't that way. Other men have been able to move beyond that.

I WAS asking men out until I discovered it wasn't effective personally...

Guess what? Every man has had the experience of asking women out and finding that it wasn't "effective personally" (i.e. the women weren't that into him or he ended up not being that into the women.)

Again, you seem to feel your experience as a woman should be different. Your magical feminine fairy dust should have caused every guy you asked out to end up falling madly in love with you.

"I WAS asking men out until I discovered it wasn't effective personally -- and then found a mountain of research to back it up."

Amy, it's funny that my experiences are similar: I also spent my 20's experimenting with asking women out on traditional dates and found it to be risky. In addition, this was during an era that exists even today where women try to get men fired for asking them out. Despite you accusing us of being whiners, discussion sections of newspapers are full of aging biological clock ticker women griping that there's a shortage of rich, good looking guys ready to also do all the cooking and cleaning and have a child with her 6 months after the first dinner date.

No exaggeration, BTW. I actually had an aging career woman ask me on the first date if I wanted to have kids. And unlike many men, I didn't run for the hills worrying she might try to trap me. What concerned me was her lack of concern for me as a person. Yes, she did seem to act like a reptile and I don't mate with reptiles.

Ooooh! Jim! You missed something. This is an ideal time to ask if Amy insisted upon paying for these dates because "asker pays".

Needless to say, it wasn't a monumental failure because boys didn't like being asked out. Girls simply didn't like doing it.

Yep. I was on another internet forum years ago where we were talking about this. Many of the women said they had asked a man out once, were turned down and were "devastated" because of it and would, therefore, never do it again.

I wouldn't say it's a numbers game. I know a poor chap who asked out 100 girls and was rejected each time.

I'm not saying it's only that. But I think it's a numbers game to a large extent. Even with a 3:1 single male to female ratio, if that guy got rejected 100 out of 100 times he must have been seriously lacking in a few important areas.

If you want to believe that men and women are the same, which is essentially what you're arguing, feel free to act on it.

Au contraire, mon amy. You're the one who is claiming that all men are the same. I'm saying that men differ. Some indeed don't like being asked out and would likely not value a woman who did that, while others have no problem with it and value a woman for who she is, not based on whether she asked them out or not.

Amy, as Jim points out, all ask-outs carry a risk of rejection and the other person not valuing them. It's not a claim of biological equality but rather a logical observation.

Thanks, PK.

This is an ideal time to ask if Amy insisted upon paying for these dates because "asker pays".

Why bother when we know that "whoever asks, pays" really means "whoever has the vagina, doesn't pay."

When we were discussing this on another thread, PK, I had mentioned a very attractive and sexy woman who asked me out about ten years ago. Not only did I not mind, I was very flattered. We ended up being together for two years and I didn't value her any less because she had asked me out. While I've taken the initiative with every other woman I've been with, I'm not a guy who needs to hunt a woman like prey in order to place value on her. However, I've no doubt that some guys are like that.

Amy obviously disagrees but I maintain that if a woman does ask a man out and it doesn't work out for them it's most likely because he's not that into her or she ends up not being that into him (or both of them feel that way.)

I WAS asking men out until I discovered it wasn't effective personally

I don't expect honest answers, since you have a vested interest in spinning your experiences to support your belief, but I'd love to have been the ol' fly on the wall and observed:

. how many men you asked out

. exactly what happened in each case

Jim, regarding the guy who got rejected a 100 times. He was just an ordinary guy. Not great looking but not bad looking either. At the time, in the late 80's and the highly PC climate of the university, nearly all the women thought that they were victim-princesses entitled to either a great looking rich guy or a frat boy with lots of beer at the frat house. With the high male to female ratio, they thought they could get away with that attitude and often did. Then when they left the place and went out into the Real World, they often got a harsh awakening.

Jim, what I think Amy is saying when she says men and women are different is that (most) men and women are biologically programmed into the roles as defined by Amy and most women: That women like good looking men take all the risks and to pay for them and that men also love this and so this is as natural as the sun setting.

This would be like a man saying that it's natural for men to like being slobs and for gorgeous women to pick up after us and women must like this arrangement because it's "natural" and we like it so they must too. It's a very self-centered way of thinking. And Amy is more saavy and enlightened than the typical woman which says that most women in our culture must be really clueless. And from my personal experience, that's largely the case.

That isn't to say they're bad. They're just clueless or naive. Since a clueless pretty woman offers pretty much the same value as a clueless ugly woman, I choose the clueless pretty woman. (Oops. I should rephrase that lest she talk to my wife!) Actually, my wife was pretty smart because she saw that I had a lot of potential and she's a bargain hunter.

There's a wonderful Russian film "Moscow doesn't believe in tears" which explores this very scenario. It is surprisingly insightful for a Soviet era film. I highly recommend it and if you want to get a bunch of Russians, male or female, to start talking with you just mention this film.

Jim, an acquaintance of mine is from a multi-million dollar wealthy family and also 6 feet 4 and a basketball player in addition to having an MBA. His sister told me stories about how googly eyed women would make clumsy passes at him and offer to buy him dinner and asked for his number. He did what many women do: Gave them a wrong number. However, he never engaged in cruelty and made fun of them to their face or tried to get them fired or got angry because they had the nerve to try to ask someone out of their league.

In other words, the shaming ploys and demands that men jump through hoops for girl treats works only on insecure BETA males.

Thanks, PK. I know that's what Amy is saying. And the thing is, I agree with her that there likely are general differences between men and women when it comes to tendencies. But I disagree that each sex is somehow fundamentally locked into the same behaviors, thoughts and feelings. Men and women are not computers that are "biologically programmed", incapable of deviating from this programming.

"You're the one who is claiming that all men are the same."

And just where did you read this?

I think you need to look into the logical fallacies. At no point in my reading has Amy claimed any two people are alike, much less claim that all of the same gender are identical.

Now, if you're the sensitive type, go ahead and be offended. But show where she said that.

Interestingly, I need to agree with Amy at least partially and disagree with you. What the post-feminist era has shown us is that most women are locked into programmed needs for men as providers and protectors. This means that most women's fundamental desires are in conflict with modern notions of legal equality for women. I pointed this out to feminists who tried to sidestep the issue by saying: "Personal choices have nothing to do with. Sorry! Tee hee!" "Oh yeah", I retorted, "Guess the government shouldn't bail out unwed mothers or provide free fertility treatments for aging career women. Sorry!"

The status quo we live in requires that while a comparative few women are able to seemingly double-dip, many wind up on the welfare state as unwed mothers in poverty when they are unable to procure one of the ever decreasing beta males able to live up to 1950's standards and middle and upper class career women winding up alone because they can't marry up. And we, including women who are able to get that successful breadwinning tall guy, all pay higher taxes to clean up the mess. And for what? A women's equality that most women don't want in their personal lives anyway?

So let me get something straight here. Amy is arguing that men evolved to pursue women and as a result women should under no circumstances ever ask a man out on a date because the man will “devalue” her and the relationship will fail. As a result I am supposed to see that Remoff was right.

This argument is flawed on so many levels that I hardly know where to begin. This argument is as bad as arguing that since humans evolved to hunt for food on the savannah that we should force people to continue to do so because the existence of supermarkets causes us to “devalue” eating.

Here is the thing, men didn’t simply evolve to pursue women, men evolved to be capable of pursuing women. Similarly, men didn’t evolve to hunt food, men evolved to be capable of hunting food. A man who “devalues” a woman because she asked him out is as stupid as a man who “devalues” a steak because he didn’t stalk and kill the cow himself.

Men didn’t evolve to be stupid.

Amy, I don’t recall telling you what you thought. I did however dismantle your previous argument from first principles because the argument was bad. Also, I know quite a bit about evolutionary psychology, this is why I know that no person in the field makes statements as definitive as you about women asking men out on a date.

An evolutionary psychologist would ask the following questions “Under what set of circumstances is it adaptive for women to sexually pursue men?” and “Under what set of circumstances is it adaptive for a man to reject a woman on the basis that she pursued him?”

These are good academic questions for which the correct answer is not “only stupid women ask men out on dates”.

Lastly, while it may have been inadvertent, you essentially made my case for me. While we may have evolved with a sweet tooth, only an idiot stuffs their face with cake and sugar until they are morbidly obese. Similarly, while men may have evolved to pursue women, only an idiot would reject a woman simply because she asked him on a date. That isn’t adaptive behavior for any man. A man who accepts the advances of a woman isn't a wimp. A man who adamantly refuses to ever pursue a woman is a wimp. There is a difference here that you are neglecting.

Sure, it is “risky” for a woman to ask a man out. It is also “risky” for a woman not to ask a man out. Risk is a nebulous enough concept that if you leave it as undefined as you have it can apply to just about anything.

All risk means is that the potential exists for a chosen action (or inaction) to not result in the desired outcome.

When it comes to asking someone out on a date the only risk that seems immediately relevant is the risk of rejection. What makes your argument weak is that you haven’t given a good justification for why it is more “risky” for a woman to ask out a man than the reverse.

Are women more likely to be rejected when they do the asking? If not then it isn’t more risky.

From what we know about evolution one would probably conclude that women are less likely to be rejected by men in such a situation, therefore it is actually less risky.

Unless of course you aren’t talking about the risk of rejection, in which case you need to define what you mean by risk more clearly.

You also neglect the risk women face of being alone if they fail to ever “risk” being rejected. This may not happen to most women, but there are at least some women out there for which this is a real possibility that they might desire to guard against.

What you appear to be saying is that any risk of rejection at all is too much for women to handle so it is best they not bother. I don’t see any evidence to suggest that women are quite that fragile. If you are that fragile then I agree that you shouldn’t do the asking, but I am sure some women can take rejection just fine.

This is a fun discussion! Here's another relevant study I had read: A researcher had men and women ask out someone on a date or a one night stand. We can all predict the latter: All the women rejected the one night stand but about half were willing go out on a date with him. Reversed, nearly all the men were fine with the one night stand but about half were also ok with going out on a date. Perhaps because the men weren't interested in a long term relationship? In any case, the study shows that men are equally interested in women asking them out. Amy's claim that men are evolved to not want women to ask them out sounds like a rationalization for her own desire to avoid risk. It's like a man saying that women must like doing all the housekeeping since it's too much work for us to help out.

Nonetheless, Brian, what is clear is that women do seem to have severe problems with taking rejection even when the risk of remaining alone is a greater risk. However, it's useful to remember that all of humanity is not wrapped up in late 20th century American social customs. Times have changed in the states and the rest of the world is quite different than here.

Amy, as I said before, I find it amusing that women are afraid to go to a man's house for sex but they are more than happy enough to let a totally strange man come to THEIR house to pick them up for an expensive dinner date... Nonetheless, even with your objection noted, it's clear that there's no greater risk of rejection for women asking men out for dates than vice-versa. Besides, come on, even if the sex was "safe" and set up at a high end hotel room and she could notify a friend of where she was going, do you think that would increase the acceptance rate much?

Amy, calling a discussion you strongly disagree with as "dumb" is like a teenage girl screaming at the top of her lungs: "I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK!" and then slamming the door. I have actually seen this.

Let's consider the claims in contention:

1) That modern, western women make greater demands on men by requiring them to be good looking and traditional providers while men only care about looks.
2) That women don't ask out men due to a strong risk.
3) This is the biggie: That men don't prefer the above and women bring their problems with the above upon themselves.

You tried to disprove 1 by citing studies such as those about men's faces. This would be like saying that men don't care about looks because a woman changes her shoes to flats and men are still interested in her.

In regards to 2, there is a risk to asking someone out but no greater than for men. So unless you can show otherwise, this implies that women are emotionally weaker than men.

Lastly, your preferences is not the same as proving what men want. You have not shown a study that demonstrates otherwise. Another chuckle about your claim women wouldn't go to a strange man's house. If it were a shoe sale, they'd probably go to Indiana Jones' Temple of Doom's mines!

Brain C, you're not being properly rigorous about the term "evolved".

An inherited trait is only considered to be "evolved" when

a) it remains heritable
b) it results in a change in the survival profile of the inheritors.

That's all there is to it.

The modern concentrations of population have occurred too recently to have influenced anything in homo sapiens, because too few generations have passed to cultivate an allele. Likewise the ability to purchase unlimited quantities of rich food.

If you're going to use science in argument, you must use logical rigor. Amy has, and objections to her observations have all been straw men!

Amy called her detractor's arguments "whining" and "dumb" and then walked off in a huff, as is her right. That's about as "scientific" as modern day climate change scientists "hiding the decline" by "fixing" the data.

Radwaste,

I agree that I haven’t been “rigorous” about the term “evolved”. That is because this forum isn’t the place for proper scientific rigor; in fact people who try to be scientifically rigorous here tend to then be criticized for being “boring”.

Unfortunately scientific rigorous statements tend to be a “boring” read on blogs. In any case, you haven’t exactly been rigorous either because while all evolved traits need to be heritable, they don’t actually have to change the survival profile to count.

What you have defined is how natural selection works which is only one of several evolutionary mechanisms. Mechanisms such as gene flow and genetic drift result in changes in allele frequency that are not directly tied to the survival of the fittest model that you are talking about. Needless to say, when you say “That’s all there is to it.” you have oversimplified what evolution actually entails.

Similarly, Amy has drastically oversimplified the field of evolutionary psychology by declaring very draconian rules about proper human romantic behavior that no one in the field would actually be comfortable supporting. Cite a peer reviewed paper which states that women should never ask a man out on a date under any circumstances and I'll reconsider my position.

BrianC, don't give Amy any wiggle room on this by making a requirement for her that comes across as a strawman. The issue isn't whether there's "scientific" evidence that women shouldn't ask out men under ANY circumstance but rather whether the risk of women doing so is significantly greater than for men.

Amy claims to have scientifically asked out a lot of men and had negative results. A lot of men have also asked out women and gotten negative results. For someone who has appealed to scientific authority, her claims lack a control (comparing her results to that of men), insists upon looking at the wrong metrics (women finding a man's face more attractive if he's rich when it's obvious that height is the strongest factor in female attraction), and projection (claiming that men prefer certain things based upon what she wants to do.) There's also ethnocentrism where she seems to think that early to latter 20th century western dating customs are somehow universal human behavior. The notion of women being able to choose a mate based upon him wooing and pleasing her is a modern one and not even global. I suggest she get a passport and start traveling outside the USA timezone.

I'm sorry if I sounded snide, Amy. But aren't you being quite snide here as well? Your "I feel for you" remark sounds condescending and insincere and I daresay, so does your claim this discussion is boring. You don't walk off in a huff AND come back to a conversation that's boring.

How is something an optimal dynamic of two in a relationship when you just said that men's experiences are immaterial? Consider:

I told you already I got plenty of dates in my 30's and married a pretty woman. So no need for croc tears over me. It all balanced out. It always does statistically. So women don't necessarily care about looks less than men but rather when the scale tipped in my favor, they had to settle. I remember in college when the ratio of men to women were 3:1 and good looking guys were dating women who weren't that attractive. It wasn't evolutionary biology at work. It was market economics and statistics.

Me (to Amy): You're the one who is claiming that all men are the same.

Radwaste: And just where did you read this?

My mistake and apologies. Amy does not believe that all men don't like a woman to ask them out and devalue any woman who does. It is probably more like 98%.

So let me get something straight here. Amy is arguing that men evolved to pursue women and as a result women should under no circumstances ever ask a man out on a date because the man will “devalue” her and the relationship will fail.

Brian, following on from what I just wrote to Radwaste, I don't believe Amy feels that women should under no circumstances ever ask a man out. If, for example, she got one thousand emails from women over the course of a year, asking for advice on whether or not they should ask a particular guy out, it's possible-to-likely that she might advise fifteen or twenty of the women to go for it, depending on the particular circumstances. (But, essentially, the answer to your question is yes.)

As I noted above, when we were discussing this on another thread a few months ago, I had mentioned a woman who asked me out about ten years ago. Not only did I not mind, I was very flattered. And I valued her because she was smart, playful, attractive, sexy, had a great sense of humor and we had lot in common. However, Amy and another woman seemed convinced that, even though I said I valued her, I was just fooling myself and I really didn't (e.g. Amy's comment above: you might like to believe you won't devalue a woman who pursues you but it is likely you will.) Amy puts so much emphasis on that one act -- who asks the other person out -- over everything else. Somehow, the argument goes, the fact that a woman took some initiative and asked a man out will almost always negate every other thing a man likes and loves about her.

Since asking out and paying are burdens for whomever takes them on (men or women), it can be argued that women don't value relationships with men who ask them out and pay their way.

And this is apparently the case based upon divorce statistics where women file most of the time and go out on dates just to get free meals or scarf down free drinks. It's not fun. But then again, neither is sitting around alone not wanting to take a risk.

When I met Gregg, the quick and easy thing to do would have been to ask him out. Instead, I flirted with him, giving him the idea that I would be interested in having him ask me out, which he did. It's a two-person dance, not a one woman show.

If Amy had asked Gregg to go with her for a cup of coffee (or whatever) the day they met at that computer store, I'm 100% certain he would have agreed and 99% certain they'd be together today, just like they are now, and that he'd be just as happy with her.

What I find so interesting is that if Gregg hadn't asked her out that day and she had, for example, heard later from a someone who happened to know both of them that he had been interested in her, she would have had nothing but disdain and contempt for him, the same disdain and contempt she repeatedly displays here. Even though Amy obviously thinks he's a great guy (and he probably is) her view of him would change dramatically based on that one thing.

Amy consistently brings up the dance metaphor, and I've repeatedly explained that a couple can have a great time dancing regardless of who asked who to dance. I've asked plenty of women to dance. Some of them have been good dancers; some not. I've occasionally been asked to dance. Some of them have been good dancers; some not. I enjoyed dancing with the women who were good dancers, regardless of who did the asking, and I didn't care for dancing with the women who weren't very good, regardless of who did the asking.

Amy likes to use the word silly. To me, what's silly is placing such a huge emphasis on who initiates things over the connection two people may have.

Women look for men to be providers.

Women who aren't as evolved, yes. A woman making good money who can't get wet unless her man makes more than her is still stuck in the stone age. In contrast, a woman making good money who can get turned on by and love a man even if he makes less money than her has managed, somehow, to evolve away from that stone age mentality.

What you appear to be saying is that any risk of rejection at all is too much for women to handle so it is best they not bother. I don’t see any evidence to suggest that women are quite that fragile.

Brian, I have seen some "evidence" (anecdotal) which suggests that. Above I wrote: I was on another internet forum years ago where we were talking about this. Many of the women said they had asked a man out once, were turned down and were "devastated" because of it and would, therefore, never do it again.

Some other women said they had thought about asking a guy out but didn't because they were too afraid of being turned down.

What I appreciated about these women was their honesty. They admitted they were afraid of rejection, which is natural, rather than trying to put the blame on men for "not being interested in any woman who asks them out."

Nonetheless, Brian, what is clear is that women do seem to have severe problems with taking rejection even when the risk of remaining alone is a greater risk.

PK, I think that's because being passive and rejected is easier than being active and rejected. For example, I think it much harder on the ego of many (and perhaps most) women to ask a man to dance and be turned down than it is to wait to be asked to dance and not be asked by any man the entire evening.

To a large extent, this whole who-asks-who thing is becoming more irrelevant with the popularity of online dating. In "offline" areas, women are likely always going to expect and demand that men do the asking. And, to some extent, that's probably true online as well. I suspect that a higher percentage of women than men online will not initiate things. But I'm sure that far more women are willing to initiate things online than they are otherwise and, if that's the case, it's probably because being rejected that way isn't as tough on the ego as being rejected in person.

It's risky and probably negative for women to ask men out.

Amy, you have your belief (men devalue women who ask them out) and I have mine (men care much more about the connection with a woman than about who initiates things) but I don't have any need to be right. I don't mind having my beliefs overturned. If there was something, like numerous studies, that could somehow substantiate your assertion that a relationship initiated by a woman was far more likely to be negative, I'd be fine with that.

As far it being risky, Brian, PK and I all agree it can be risky. We're just saying that it's also risky when a man asks a woman out and there's no reason that women should be exempt from risk.

Fishin' lesson:

Amy says: "Women look for men to be providers."
Jim replies: "Women who aren't as evolved, yes."

Let's clarify what both Amy and Jim are saying. But before I do, this discussion is hardly as boring as Amy makes it out to be if she comes back to it. More on that later.

I don't consider Amy unevolved for finally admitting (most) women are emotionally and financially insecure. It would have saved us a lot of time if she had said so from the beginning rather than this asker-pays nonsense or trying to portray men as shallow about looks in an attempt at moral equivalency. It also would have saved time in this dumb discussion if she didn't pretend like the reason she didn't want to ask out men was that men didn't like it. It's about keeping an advantage. So much obfuscation but isn't what she's talking about precisely getting what she wants by those means? Yet, in the end, this is not going to happen: "what's optimal for the dynamic of the two in the relationship" as she puts it. She doesn't know what Gregg really wants. Heck, Gregg may not even know at this point. And that's something she has to live with.