"way too much information on your business card"

Exactly. The only way women know he is inexperienced is if he tells them so. Shut up about it, get to know the girl, hide your nervousness and go for it. There ain't no other way but to jump in the cold water.

Once you're in, the swimming is fine. Nobody says you have to be one of the jerks who carves notches in his bedposts. Some guys are that way and some aren't. Some women like that and some don't. Be who you are and ignore the stereotypes...

I recommend the book "No More Mr. Nice Guy" by Dr. Glover. I think it is on the list of books that Amy recommends. Anyway, if you read it with an open mind you'll understand why you walk around with VICTIM stamped on your head and how to change that.

Nobody wants to listen to a whiner (male or female). They are no fun at all, and definitely not sexy.

Sounds like an interesting book. You can get the condensed, modern urbanite version of what Glover is trying to put forth here (for free):

http://www.geocities.com/godfurther/pimpinium/pimposophy.html

The navigation is not necessarily intuitive, but the various "articles" are fairly common sense evolutionary biology, once you get past the "lingo".

Seriously.

"but if a man doesn't date much or have much experience, women will often reject his sexuality completely (seeing him only as a friend)" No it's viewed as different which can be good and can be bad. Some people see any deviation from the social norm as bad, other see it a good. This however has nothing to do with women seeing you as friends vs lover or both.

First being a friend and lover is not a bad thing, friends with benifits. Also from personal experience it's possible that one or more of them did at one point want to get nasty with you. You however missed what SHE thought were obvious signs of interest. She felt rejected and then her desire to get nasty went away. I have screwed the pooch on that one more times than I ever want to think about.

Your excessive use of big words (pejorative 3 times in one paragraph) can make you sound like a tool, or arrogant. Having a vast repositories of these words and occasionally throwing them out makes you seem smart or at least well read. When you use them in everyday conversation constantly it sounds bad. There are some women who are into to it so pick you audience carefully.

"Men and other boys will make fun of him for not being able to live up to the playboy/stud lifestyle." Actually no. There are plenty of man sluts who get looked at funny by the rest of us. They are the ones we are all laughing at now (years after high school or college) as time and reality burns them like a Broco Rod. Now if your lack of experience is not for lack of trying that's a different story. If you try to hump everything that is or might be female and get shot down every time you might be a loser, one who does not learn from past experiences.

I hate to say it, as its such a cliche but channeling Lord Flashheart, "what a poof!".

Its the way women are. Welcome to reality land full of double standards, some of which make sense. Live with it and don't take a lot of it seriously, lest you become like those harpies who promote the women's studies mindset.

Indeed. Not much to add. When I met my boyfriend, what I saw was a tall, good-looking guy who was an amazing dancer and a total sweetheart. We'd been on a few dates (um . . . including one in the restroom at a bar. What can I say, I appreciate the classics!) and I'd discovered I really liked him by the time I found out I was only the 4th woman he'd ever been with. I thought it was sort of charming, and that's that.

I don't necessarily think this is a double standard. It would be a double standard if everyone in the room were one sex. The standard's of sexual activity for one gender are not going to be the same for the other, because men and women are different. One's not superior to the other, but unless you're blind,deaf,or lack all of the five senses, I suppose, you may have noticed certain mechanics which were designed differently.

I guess the question which should be asked is "are the standards correct?" Im not even quite sure what perspective to ask that question from, but I don't think its a bad one to ask. Either way, the question doesn't solve the problem of the letter writer getting laid. I mean, if you don't have much experience, don't broadcast that. Just smile like you got what it takes. Or at least, that's what I did and it worked a couple times.

If you really really don't like the standard and want to change... become a woman?

No, you can't win. You'll never make everyone happy so stop trying. Stop advertising how many, or how few, women you've been with, and you won't get penalized (whatever that means). Its nobody else's business.

Seriously, why should you give a rabid rat's asshole about what other people think of your romantic history? Your guy friend's opinions don't mean shit diddly, frankly. And any woman who would reject you based on a lack of sexual experience is someone you don't want to waste time with anyway. Grow a pair, for crying out loud.

(Sorry. Bad day at the orifice.)

LW, if the matter of your sexual experience comes up, just be coy, as in, "Oh, I don't like to kiss and tell." The subject may come up again later, at which point you can be honest, but, by that time, she will be taken with your charms and not care where you've been dipping it.

And the "double standard," if you want to call it that, bites women in the ass, too. Women who advertise that they've had many partners are treated like whores. I have a friend who has had about 30 lovers. She advertises the fact, unfortunately. She really wants to get married and have children, but most men see her as a sex toy rather than a lifelong partner.

In addition to reading No More Mr. Nice Guy (which just about every guy - and every woman! - should read, methinks), the LW also might want to watch "Last Days of Disco." While I don't think he's *exactly* like the character of Alice, I think he'll find some helpful insights in her journey in the movie.

Oh jeeesh. Amy's right. You just gotta' suck it up.

It's a numbers game. A guy's going to be rejected up to 90% of the time. There's just no way around it. Take steps to minimize early cash outlays, qualify women quickly, don't be afraid to dump early and often.

I highly recommend Richard Feynman's essay You Just Ask Them. Yes, that Feynman the famous physicist. It's still the best advice on how to avoid the professional dater, the gold digger, and the woman seeking an entertainment director.

I will say though, a lot of women don't get how rough it is on a man's ego to get rejected so often. There's no way around it, but rejection makes some guys gun shy --- in sales, in public speaking, in writing, and yes in dating.

If you're a woman, and you want to try to understand the issue, I'd read Self-Made Man. It might give you a better take, if you're advising a young man and you're not a man.

Oh Jeff. Poor angry cynical Jeff. You make me so sad!

Way back last spring weren't you going to try and find a nice, decent, sane non-gold-digging girl? Seems to me there was supposed to be a 6 month period of really, really trying involved? I'm guessing it didn't go well?

Well, he might be cynical, but not terribly wrong.

You know, I know plenty of women who don't fit any of those categories that Jeff mentions. Jeff and Scott, you might want to think about what you're looking for in women that causes you to attract these three types on a constant basis. I know a lot of schoolteachers and pastors who are married, so evidently there are a non-insignificant number of women out there not looking for pots of gold in the form of mates. The one common factor in your scenarios is you. Both of you might start looking at what you might be doing to sabotage your chances of finding decent women.

(And yes, I give the same advice to my female friends who complain about there being "no good men out there." There are good men, and good women, but for various reasons, the non-good men and non-good women often seem more appealing at the outset to the opposite sex. It's not a gender thing - it's a human thing.)

Somewhere out there there's a shy woman who's thinking, "Geez, can a girl without the sexual repertoire of Heidi Fleiss find a guy who thinks she's hot?" That's the woman for this LW, IMHO. He might want to look at his mate-search approach to see why he's not finding her.

I think it's a question of what are you looking for. If you past is um tarnished you really should find a person who doesn't care. If the person your with did things in their past that you find offensive and you can't get over it move on. This includes things other than finding you wife was the main star in a gang bang video. If you wife or gf is a peace loving hippy and you spent time in military intelligence in Guantanamo it probably won't work. If you want a wife who can suck start a leaf blower and knows the cama suitra cover to cover a church group is a target poor environment for the most part. There are of course several things to keep in mind. There are exception to every supposition, ie: you could find a penitent and clean ex hooker at a church group. There is some things that you are so unlikely to find together that look is pointless, ie a virgin master snake handler is one example, a hot model who cooks, cleans AND works is another (hot and domestic are rare at least in the US in my generation). Make sure you are offering enough into the situation to get said person. Quality is rare with heavy competition makes sure your at least the best of the rest.

Back to Amy's basic philosophy find someone your compatible philosophically, spiritually, and financially. Even then it can get very very dicey when people change. They all do and most people focus on the negative changes and not the positive ones.

"I highly recommend Richard Feynman's essay You Just Ask Them. Yes, that Feynman the famous physicist." First if you read the whole thing you'd know that he stopped using the tactic and after his wife passed he was plowing every grad student he could. That will also turn off all of the "good" girls you hold in such high regard. These tactics work for one night stands, actually quite well. You ignore the chick and she starts working harder to get your attention. I have also had this phenomenon explained to me by different drunk female friends at different times. To put it simply it's more of an issue of don't shit where you sleep. You don't have casual sex with someone who's marriage material but assholes are safe for getting you one night stands.

However I tried just the opposite tactic in two strip clubs now and you wouldn't believe what I got offered, no I didn't do it. There might be some thing to that old old adage about ladies and tramps.

Another one. LW: remove wishbone, insert backbone! It really is that hard, and that simple.

And just so you know, guys are sluts too, some of them. A musician friend of mine freely admits to being a slut, and I love him for it. (Of course, I didn't love catching him with someone else when we were going out, but hey, that's the chance you take! YMMV) o.O

I can't argue with the theme here. This LW dude has to quit being a weenie. Been there, know about that. Lost a girl years ago to some dude whose appeal I couldn't understand. Was I kind? I thought so. Thoughtful? I thought so, but I have no idea what she thought. And him? Drank a lot, as far as I knew. But being the sensitive, piano-playing, cookie-baking boyfriend apparently wasn't as alluring as I thought it should have been. I'm not kidding.

First if you read the whole thing you'd know that he stopped using the tactic and after his wife passed he was plowing every grad student he could. That will also turn off all of the "good" girls you hold in such high regard. These tactics work for one night stands, actually quite well. (vlad)

I see how you got this, it's my fault. Yes, that tactic does work for getting laid. It has a 100% success ratio for me, so long as the pool of women is large enough.

As for relationships, I wouldn't advocate that tactic but I would advocate the mindset. I'm not going to treat a woman like a little girl. I expect her to give early and often just like me. Lots of women won't do this. In fact, most women won't do this. It's a large minority that are not only willing but enthusiastic about this kind of dating style.

By adopting the mindset of just asking for it, being willing to move on on until you get a "that's how I like to date," is a good way to limit cash outlays and secure what you're looking for. Get a woman to disqualify herself as early as possible. This mindset works for relationship dating too.

It also is an aid to guys like the LW, who often think a "no" means it's over for the night. Guys like the LW often don't grasp that "no" just means "go get another one." Women ar plentiful.

As is Marion above. My friends are not golddiggers. Nor am I. (Amy)

Who says you are? That's a classic misdirection. You may not be a golddigger, but there's a massive number of women who are. That's a fact.

What you and lots of women don't get, because you don't lay out the cash, is that guys aren't just spending money on you. Maybe you can see why women appear self-centered sometimes. Jeeesh.

Do a simple utility tree analysis. Assume reasonable costs and a 70% rejection rate. See how much money it takes to get to a woman who is relationship material, say at five dates. You have to date a lot of women and spend a lot of money if they all get to date three, for example. You easily see that the best male strategy is to disqualify women early to prevent spending money on a dead end date. Men need to spend money and time with women who have potential.

I admit this is not as importnt for women. There's an obvious reason for it: women don't put out the cash. The pretense that there's not a lot of money involved or that it's not important is simply stupid. Very stupid.

I have a friend whose son complained at the dinner table that he never had money but his sister always did. His sister piped up that she had a boyfriend and he had a girlfriend. She had a guy spending money on her, but he had to lay out money. If a fifteen year old girl can grasp this fact, why can't you?

Not 'whose' but 'who's.' In fact just repalce it with "A friend's son complained..."

Hmm. I did a simple decision tree out to three dates with descending rejection rates. It also had pretty low estimates on date costs. If I recall correctly, it took around $2k to ensure at least one women with relationship potential. Of course, there's rejection rates after that, too.

Bottom line: dating is expensive for men. I really don't understand why women deny it.

"The pretense that there's not a lot of money involved or that it's not important is simply stupid. Very stupid." That depends on your approach and follow up tactics. First if she insist on going to a $40 a plate dinner walk the hell away, automatic gold digger. A movie is still about $20 for two even in Boston, there's other stuff in that range. So we are talking about $60 over a week period to disqualify one of the better ones. If you need 3 dates to tell if there is a spark between you two or you being used your coy-dar is even shittier than mine.

"If a fifteen year old girl can grasp this fact, why can't you?" Your comparing a 15 yo girl with an adult women, you don't see the logic problem here? If you're bunny hunting with college girls then yes it could be an issue. Now this is true regardless of her being a gold digger. She's broke, and sleeping with you cause you have money makes her a _____. If your both students and she can't grasp the fact that your SOL in the money department walk away. If you can't grasp the fact that she doesn't want to feel like a whore you need to reevaluate your view. If she wants high cost dates then your assumption is valid, run. If she recommends low cost/free dates then your reaction is bullshit and you might be passing up a good thing.

Way back last spring weren't you going to try and find a nice, decent, sane non-gold-digging girl? Seems to me there was supposed to be a 6 month period of really, really trying involved? I'm guessing it didn't go well? (catspajamas)

Actually, I did take Amy's advice. I tried it her way. Generous and chivalrous. It was a disaster. Almost 100% gold diggers. When I went back to my old way of dating and dumped these money grubbers, one of them complained, "Who will take me to the theater, now?" Fucking hell. At least she put out.

But by returning to my methods, I've snagged a lawyer. Think Amy but blond. Traffic-stopping ass and high IQ. She took me out last Saturday because it's her turn. I like it like that. Thanks for asking. I know you have such high hopes for my happiness.

On this one issue, I disagree with Amy. And the disagreement is total. I disagree theoretically in evolutionary psychology, in actual practice, and in common sense. Amy's advice is optimal for a female and the worst possible for a male. She has yet to come to terms with the competitive, not just cooperative, aspects of courtship and mating. IMHO.

"If I recall correctly, it took around $2k to ensure at least one women with relationship potential." Ok I buy the math but where are you getting your rejection stats. Those would only be valid if you shot gunned a room. A good deal of those rejection would be, married/committed women and lesbians. The ratios will vary based on you target location.

Now if you were more selective about your hunting ground it gets much easier. Honey hunting at a bar is like sniping with an RPG.

That depends on your approach and follow up tactics. First if she insist on going to a $40 a plate dinner walk the hell away, automatic gold digger. A movie is still about $20 for two even in Boston, there's other stuff in that range. So we are talking about $60 over a week period to disqualify one of the better ones. If you need 3 dates to tell if there is a spark between you two or you being used your coy-dar is even shittier than mine.(vlad)

Well, Amy is the one who recommends going three dates to see if she will give back. Not me. I'm with you. Dump the gold diggers early. But women are wiley, especially professional daters. They can skillfully lead you on. You gotta' "just ask them" and move on if you don't get a good answer.

Your comparing a 15 yo girl with an adult women, you don't see the logic problem here? (vlad)

No, I don't. The circumstances are the same. Money goes from man to woman, so the fiscal effects and optimal strategies for men and women are different. This situation is exactly analogous to studying ancient warfare for insights into modern warfare. The principles are the same but the situation is simpler to analyze.

You keep saying to walk away if she is not giving you the answers or behaviors one wants. But that's exactly what I'm saying. I don't understand your disagreement here.

There are lots of gold diggers and professional daters. Do you agree with that claims?

"Who will take me to the theater, now?" Were you taking her to a theater or "The Theater" (stated in a high born English accent), she was pretentious and her being a gold digger surprised you?

Congrats on scoring a lawyer always had a fondness for business suite sex my self.

Now if you were more selective about your hunting ground it gets much easier. Honey hunting at a bar is like sniping with an RPG. (vlad)

As you yourself pointed out, that's good for getting laid. A guy can get laid for free. No disagreement there.

In dating for a relationship, the decision tree is still revealing, especially for women who I really don't think have considered it. This kind of analysis is well understood. It's exactly how sales management determines activity levels and expected costs to make a confirmed sale. This problem has been solved, and the solution shows that dating is expensive. Very expensive, even with optimal qualification and selection of female prospects.

So I agree with you. Be selective and qualify. Still, it's going to be expensive.

she was pretentious and her being a gold digger surprised you? (vlad)

Vlad, you dumb ass. I see you've improved your internet mind reading skills. Heh.

"This situation is exactly analogous to studying ancient warfare for insights into modern warfare. The principles are the same but the situation is simpler to analyze." What would Sun Tzu say about the use of air support and tactical nukes? If the principles apply then they are so over generalized as to be nothing more than fun reading. Rommel treaties on armored assault are still used Sun Tzu is read as a mental masturbation.

"There are lots of gold diggers and professional daters. Do you agree with that claims?" I'm a successful engineer no shit I agree with you, goes double cause I'm not looking. This does not change the fact that the level of serial dater and gold digger varies by location. You go to a stable and try to pick up women there you will without fail find 90% gold digger and married women, often both in one package. You go to a gay bar and about 75% of the women are lesbian the other 25% are there to avoid straight men. The list goes on.

"You keep saying to walk away if she is not giving you the answers or behaviors one wants. " She's not willing to fuck you on date one is very different than seeing is she interested in you or your wallet. Also how pray tell (as you experienced with Dame Theater) how does her willing to get laid on date one preclude her being a gold digger/serial dater. Again my argument of are you looking for sex or relationship. The most dangerous gold digger is the one willing to give up the goods on date one.

"I see you've improved your internet mind reading skills. Heh." Well you did take her to the theater and given the example you brought it up in I assumed it wasn't cheap. So you spend money on her. Wouldn't that be against you basic view of the subject. So either you knew she was a gold digger and were paying for sex or you would have been surprised.

What would Sun Tzu say about the use of air support and tactical nukes? If the principles apply then they are so over generalized as to be nothing more than fun reading. Rommel treaties on armored assault are still used Sun Tzu is read as a mental masturbation. (vlad)

You talk about thing of which you have no knowledge. First of all Rommel didn't write treatises. He wrote a personal history, mainly about his close assault tactics with the infantry. Guderian wrote a treatise on armored warfare. Second, Guderian is widely thought to have applies Sun Tzu's idea of extraordinary and ordinary forces to his notion of blizkrieg. Third, Sun Tzu is required reading in both the Amy and the USMC. His work is studied intensely in the Basic School. For more, get a copy of the Army's Guide to the Study of Military History. Still making shit up, I see.

This does not change the fact that the level of serial dater and gold digger varies by location. (vlad)

So? Please state in standard form your disagreement with my claims.

he's not willing to fuck you on date one is very different than seeing is she interested in you or your wallet. (vlad)

Yes. So? Please state in standard form your disagreement with my claims.

Well you did take her to the theater and given the example you brought it up in I assumed it wasn't cheap. So you spend money on her. Wouldn't that be against you basic view of the subject. So either you knew she was a gold digger and were paying for sex or you would have been surprised. (vlad)

Nope, Because, as usual, you've dropped context. Go take some ADHD meds, you're missing shit. Kill anyone today Mr. Engineer> Jeesh.

I gave that example of me following Amy's methods, which are to be generous up to the third date. Damn, boy. You're fucking slow on the uptake today.

Whoa, Jeff, I think you took Amy's advice too far!

Yes, chivalry is good, yes so is generosity... to a point!

The first few dates should be cheap. You should pay for them, but they should not be theater dates, unless it's some little hole-in-the-wall $10 place.

Spending a ton of $$ on someone you're not committed to is a bad idea. It can be off-putting, like you are trying to buy her affection. Or like you think you're so awesome because you have a ton of money. Or like you're nouveau riche and fiscally irresponsible... not used to handling money.

Letter Writer, DON'T spend a lot of money on the first few dates.

Do tease. Poke fun at her a little. Make her laugh.

It's hard to give advice without knowing anything about you... what do you like? What are your hobbies? What do you look like? Different tactics work for different people.

I have a "dog breed theory of love". If you're a pug, you shouldn't try to be a poodle... find a pug-lover and be the cutest little pug ever! You know?

"First of all Rommel didn't write treatises."
http://www.answers.com/topic/treatise as per the obsolete use of the word yes he did "Obsolete. A tale or narrative". He used and wrote about both Armour and infantry working together, though hes his main experience was infantry.

"His work is studied intensely in the Basic School." Right as the old marines used to say they give ROTC Sun Tzu for mental masturbation purposes.

"Second, Guderian is widely thought to have applies Sun Tzu's idea of extraordinary and ordinary forces to his notion of blizkrieg." Applying general concept requires that one actually know what the hell they are talking about.

Which form of standard form would you like me to use oh wise and noble master of anal seepage.

To put it more succinctly Fuck you too princess.

Right as the old marines used to say they give ROTC Sun Tzu for mental masturbation purposes. (vlad)

Made up.

He used and wrote about both Armour and infantry working together, though hes his main experience was infantry. (vlad)

No. He didn't write an armor manual, he contributed his infantry expertise to the High Staff's manual on combined arms. Even then, the treatise was Guderian's.

Applying general concept requires that one actually know what the hell they are talking about. (vlad)

True. Fortunately, we do.

Which form of standard form would you like me to use oh wise and noble master of anal seepage. (vlad)

Ouch. That's moving up to third grade. You must have taken those meds.

I don't remember your answer, did your wife fuck around on you with a rugby player. Oh, did I mention I play rugby?

It's called a syllogism. Although, if you aren't making a counter-claim, you can just make a list of my claims, that you think are false, along with a list of your objections to them in the form of a syllogism.

I have a "dog breed theory of love". If you're a pug, you shouldn't try to be a poodle... find a pug-lover and be the cutest little pug ever! You know? (NicoleK)

That is good advice. Now what do you think about a man just asking, "Do you like pugs?" and then moving politely one if the answer isn't to his liking. If that's to direct, what about using various oblique ways to allow a woman to demonstrate her fondness for pugs?

That's about what I advocate: men taking responsibility to qualify the women they date with an eye to conserving valuable resources that could be used on a delightful lover of pugs.

The first few dates should be cheap. You should pay for them, but they should not be theater dates, unless it's some little hole-in-the-wall $10 place. (NicolkK)

Drats, I hit submit instead of preview. Somewhere on this site, I can't find it by the search box, I did a simple utility tree analysis with very conservative assumptions. I think the first date was $20, the second $40$, and the third $60. Something like that.

Still, at conservative rejection rates, it will take thousands of dollars to be assured of finding one good relationship potential. I know women hate to hear this, I'm not sure why exactly. But dating is expensive.

" ... sensitive, piano-playing, cookie-baking boyfriend ... " Ummm. I just got a little damp. Seriously.

Jeff: "Thanks for asking. I know you have such high hopes for my happiness." You're welcome. And I do. Congrats on the lawyer! Maybe you and Scott should come up with a questionnaire? Instead of the Beck's Psychopathy Test you could have the Jeff and Scott's Gold Digger Test - hand it out on little cards. Great ice breaker and if she scores 30 or more out of 40 move on.

Question 1: what would you do on a first date?
Answer: coffee and a walk in the park. (On to Question 2.)
Answer: he takes me to the thee-ah-tah and out for dinner. (Run away.)

Beginning to think I come from another planet. My last boyfriend said, "You're way too independent. You don't neeeeeed me." The thing is I really did. Just not for buying me dinner and changing my flats.

You may not be a golddigger, but there's a massive number of women who are. That's a fact.

No, that's your opinion. Just as the "fact" that there is a massive number of guys who are thoughtless jerks is the *opinion* of certain female friends of mine. I'd say a massive number of the women you are meeting are golddiggers, which leads me to reiterate my point that you might want to re-analyze your approach.

The first few dates should be cheap. You should pay for them, but they should not be theater dates, unless it's some little hole-in-the-wall $10 place.

Most definitely. I think my boyfriend and I went out on three dates or so before we actually went to dinner. And I offered to pay each time we went out. He kept refusing, so eventually I invited him to my home for dinner and a movie and I provided the food et al for our evening. Now we have a loose arrangement for who pays for whom that suits us fine.

If you're really excluding all women who won't sleep with you after three dates, then you probably are excluding a fair number of women with good souls. Now, many of us are picky in many different ways; your form of pickiness is your business. But you might want to analyze whether your pickiness strategy is getting you what you're looking for.

And, as a non-golddigging woman, I can say that it tends to creep us the hell out when we get the sense that someone is treating us to an extravagant dinner out of the expectation of an immediate sexual quid pro quo. Take someone to dinnner, don't take someone to dinner, but if you really want to be able to demand sex in return for a monetary outlay, head to one of the areas in Nevada where prostitution is legal.

This does not change the fact that the level of serial dater and gold digger varies by location. You go to a stable and try to pick up women there you will without fail find 90% gold digger and married women, often both in one package. You go to a gay bar and about 75% of the women are lesbian the other 25% are there to avoid straight men.

Church (or your preferred religious institution) is a good place to meet people, if you pick the right one. Yes, yes, this won't work so well for atheists and agnostics, unless they're comfortable with the Unitarian Church, and some people who participate in organized religion are terrible hypocrites et al. But you're probably going to get a higher percentage of non-golddiggers et al at church - or a community center at which you volunteer, or at certain charities, or...you get the idea. That having been said, I really think that Apple Stores should be holding singles events. If Apple is going to be a modern-day secular religion, it might as well fill the traditional matchmaking role as well.

"Jeff and Scott, you might want to think about what you're looking for in women that causes you to attract these three types on a constant basis. I know a lot of schoolteachers and pastors who are married, so evidently there are a non-insignificant number of women out there not looking for pots of gold in the form of mates. The one common factor in your scenarios is you. Both of you might start looking at what you might be doing to sabotage your chances of finding decent women."

To clarify: I believe he is right about men being rejected more often than not. that if you dont ask you won't know. I dont necessarily think all women fall into three horrid categories. there are only two categories. Women Im attracted to, and women i'm not. I asked out the ones i'm attracted to if I find them to be interesting people. I haven't had many gold diggers, then again im not the type to attract it, as I clearly dont have much gold. Back to the original point, I was just saying, yeah, 90% isn't a real bad number. But there's the 10%, that's all that counts.

marion: "I'd say a massive number of the women you are meeting are golddiggers, which leads me to reiterate my point that you might want to re-analyze your approach." Exactly! Wouldn't it be great if there were obvious signs of potential gold diggery? Oh, wait - there are:

Spray-on tan
Porn nails (long, square and french-manicured)
Lots o' makeup
High-maintenance hair
Cleavage/tight clothes whether appropriate to the situation or not
Asks what you drive
Asks what you do and then says, "Ooh, a lawyer!" instead of, "That must be interesting work."

At this risk of sounding dumb, when you say "gold digger", do you mean...

a) A woman who is looking for a husband with stable finances
b) A woman who is looking to mooch off a guy for a little while so she get get stuff, but has no intention of marrying him

I ask because "domestic" has been mentioned as a positive attribute, but if someone is a domestic at-home type, then well, obviously she is going to want to marry someone with good finances. The two kind of go together. It's hard to be a housewife if your husband is a McDonalds server.

I don't think you are going to find a homemaker type who isn't concerned about your finances. One depends on the other.

All this talk of the cost of dating for guys, like some kind of business transaction.

What about what women spend in time or money to be ready for a dinner date or even the walk in a park. Looking hot & smelling nice.

If she goes the professional route, there are visits for hair cuts & color, manicure & pedicure, waxing, clothes, & tricky shoes.

Even if she does it all at home, there are hours put into plucking, shaving, moisturizing, blow drying hair, makeup, stockings, & finally tottering around on shoes that make out butts look hot.

Only to get there & be evaluated if we're good enough to spend this dinner price on, & then to be accused of being a gold digger or a prude who won't put out by the 3rd date.

Yes dating is expensive, for everyone. If you want cheap dates, look for hippies with European ideas of grooming.

NicoleK, you have a good point. I'd also like to add that financial stability is attractive in any mate, and I do not consider myself a gold-digger. I consider myself someone who, after supporting a deadbeat husband for five years, thought it would be nice to find someone who could make his own car payments.

Money IS important if you're looking toward marriage and living together because being poor sucks, and having children in poverty sucks even more, if you plan to have them. "All you need is love" is crap when you're trying to decide which you need more, the shampoo or the toilet paper.

Catspajamas (13 Nov, 5:07 PM) said, "'... sensitive, piano-playing, cookie-baking boyfriend ...' Ummm. I just got a little damp. Seriously."

Uh, thanks? I don't believe anybody's ever told me that before...

"You however missed what SHE thought were obvious signs of interest. She felt rejected and then her desire to get nasty went away."

This has happened to me and my female friend many times, and it is hard not to take this confusion on the part of the man as a personal rejection.

I think that what women can sense is if a man actually likes women, or if he has a deep seated anger towards them because of his bad experiences. I'm the sensitive type, so I don't feel comfortable with a guy like that. Jeff, I'm sure your lawyer lady is very tough and not easily phased by this vibe, so you may have made a viable match.

I've met a lot of guys who are parasites (male gold-diggers?), so both sexes have to be very careful and watch their dates for these characteristics. (The post-divorce guys are legion-cleaned out by the divorce and burned out from working too hard for too many years, and now looking to coast on your money).

I like men, so I see lots of nice ones, and not all jerks like a lot of bitter women do.

"If you want cheap dates, look for hippies with European ideas of grooming. "

(1) I would fight for hippie chicks.
(2) The women in Paris are hot and lack fur. I think Paris is in Europe somewheres.

Excuse me, darlin' but I AM a hippie, and I like me showered, shaved and smooth, thank you very much. While I don't like shoes, I do like my weed and my wine, and I also like me clean. o.O

That said, I would also like to second Chrissy's take on parasitic men. Been there, done that, not likin' that at all! Jeff, honey, you need to understand that it's not just women that are gold-diggers, some men are too. Look, it's all well and good to generalize (and you and I have been around the block about this before), but it's not very realistic when it comes to relationships. Everyone is different, even if they have many similarities. The trick is to be more discerning than the average person, and to find some who is also more discerning. Although for many men, that could be where they make their mistake, thinking that they could get over on a woman who is more discerning than she originally appeared.

LOL, sorry Flynne, I knew I shold have put a PS. on that. Me too kitten!

But BF knew I was a t-shirt & jeans girl from the start, so there were no surprises. I wasn't going to stop caring about being dressed up, because I didn't dress up from the beginning.

"You go to a stable and try to pick up women there you will without fail find 90% gold digger and married women, often both in one package. "

Vlad, I have to admit I got a laugh out of this. When I lived in South Florida, there were a whole bunch of married women there who used to take off their rings and go cruise bars, just to see what kinds of offers they could get. I was a bit naive when I moved there, and I couldn't figure out why I kept striking out so miserably. Eventually a friendly waitress clued me in. She told me, "I'll slip you a free beer whenever you come in, if you'll promise me to never ask out any woman you meet here."

Which goes back to my point: how many bad women (and bad men) are there? Is it more or less than 50% of each gender? Well, I've long believed that the amount of trouble bad people cause is exponentially proportional to their absolute numbers. So there may not be all that many, but they have a knack for turning up in a lot of places and stirring up stuff.

However, I also have observed that certain kinds of troublesome people tend to congregate in certain areas. South Florida, I'm sorry to say after having lived there for a number of years, is chock-loaded with phonies of all sorts. It is a lousy place to look for a date-worthy woman. (Or man, probably, but I wouldn't know.) Yeah, there were a few, but they were the exceptions in that area. If what you are doing isn't working, you have to change something, and for me, part of that was changing my circumstances. Once I got away from that area, I had far better luck with women. That wasn't the only thing I had to change, but it was part of it.

This discussion still surprises me. It is a common, almost universal, experience for men to encounter gold diggers and lots of them.

Female objections to this idea are of three general kinds.

• It's easy to spot gold diggers. But it's not for a lot of men. Why? First, women are good manipulators. This is an evolved trait to compensate for their lesser physical strength. Second, men have evolved the so-called male ego to bolster confidence for combat. It's all too easy for a man to convince himself that he's a bad ass when he's just got a loose wallet. The blame here is with men. In some sense, men have to prove themselves to women. Well, women have to prove themselves to men, too. Men seem to have forgotten that.


• There's not many gold diggers. This is simply not the common experience of most men. On websites and magazines devoted to men, this is a constant source of frustration voiced by men. Frankly, a woman who denies this problem even exists for men, shouldn't even be giving advice to men.


• You just need to know how to treat a lady, and everything will be alright. Invariably, when women give advice to men, it devolves into how to better appeal to a woman. Most men don't have this problem. Women are plentiful, receptive, and in lots of case they are easy. Sure, some guys need help here, but any reasonably polite guy has this covered. The main problem men face is selecting the good ones. Me and every guy I know have dating options limited only by time and financial resources. We have a very hard time finding sincere women who like us for us. Most women we encounter take the UM approach. This means that your advice, while not exactly useless, isn't useful. The disconnect arises, IMHO, because women think dating for men is like dating for women, but it obviously isn't.

Ladies, you could really help men by being constructive. Tell us how to spot the professional dater and the gold digger. I've been asking you to do this for years. I Think I'm now entitled to conclude you don't give a damn.

My approach works. Everyone I know who's tried what y'all advocate has been made vulnerable and had their wallet reamed.

For once give a constructive alternative, or admit your self-centered advice is intended to get free entertainment for yourselves.

At this risk of sounding dumb, when you say "gold digger", do you mean... a) A woman who is looking for a husband with stable finances b) A woman who is looking to mooch off a guy for a little while so she get get stuff, but has no intention of marrying him (nicoleK)

Um. Maybe it's just me, but I've never once seen the term 'gold digger' used in the sense of (a), but only in the sense of (b). So, I mean (a) if that wasn't obvious to you.

Jeff, honey, you need to understand that it's not just women that are gold-diggers, some men are too. (flynne)

Flynne, dearie, you need to do some study in basic logic. Just because I posit the existence of female gold diggers doesn't mean that male gold diggers don't exist. This is an example of what I'm talking about in the post above. Women turn everything into a statement about them. The LW is a guy, so naturally I addressed a guy's issue. Just because it's a guy issue doesn't mean it's not a woman's issue, too.

I will say, if women aren't paying for stuff, I find it hard to see how a guy can be a gold digger. If you take my approach and insist that people share equally in costs, gold diggers can never take advantage. Most women won't pay for anything, so most women don't suffer from male gold diggers. I suspect male gold diggers are a problem for some women but the problem is more widespread for men, simply because men pay and women don't. So, in kind the problem affects both men and women, but by degree it affects men more. By and large.

Look, it's all well and good to generalize (and you and I have been around the block about this before), but it's not very realistic when it comes to relationships. (flynne)

You have to generalize for this reason: on the first three dates or so, you don't know the person. In the first four months, you don't know the person well. The purpose of dating is to get to know people. During the get-to-know-you phase, you must rely on heuristics or general guidelines. This is a demonstrable fact in human psychology. Theodore Darymple covers this in his last book, too.

All this talk of the cost of dating for guys, like some kind of business transaction. What about what women spend in time or money to be ready for a dinner date or even the walk in a park. Looking hot & smelling nice. (megaNJ)

Oh jeesh. Another women who thinks spending money on herself is equivalent to a man spending money her, too. Gold digger!

No, that's your opinion. (marion)

Nope. You are quite wrong. Women have a different orientation towards wealth than men do. This is in the aggregate, of course.

Behavioral psychology results consistently show the same results.

Evolutionary psychology also provides a comprehensive theory that explains the competition between the female desire to acquire unearned resources for herself and her progeny, while males try to spend valuable resources on the best looking and most sexually loyal females.

Theory and empirical results prove I'm right and you're wrong.

If being choosy about what females get resources makes men assholes in the view of women, then your friends are also correct.

I'd say a massive number of the women you are meeting are golddiggers, which leads me to reiterate my point that you might want to re-analyze your approach. (marion)

Classic example of the order version of the psychological fallacy. You've got the order reversed. My approach is a response the large number of professional daters and gold diggers, not the other way around.

You have no idea what you're talking about How many women have you dated? Just curious.

If you're really excluding all women who won't sleep with you after three dates, then (marion)

What gives you the idea that's what I'm doing? Your're making stuff up. Why are you lying about my claims?

Tell you what, out of fairness state what you think is my central claim.

I think that what women can sense is if a man actually likes women, or if he has a deep seated anger towards them because of his bad experiences. I'm the sensitive type, so I don't feel comfortable with a guy like that. Jeff, I'm sure your lawyer lady is very tough and not easily phased by this vibe, so you may have made a viable match. (chrissy)

First, notice the typical turnabout. It is suddenly all about what the woman thinks. All problems seem to come down to the "vibes" women get. The stereotype of the illogical, over-emotional woman is definitely on display. I dump women like this ASAP.

Second, I've written before about how women constantly use the psychological fallacy. It appears some women here are impervious to appeals to logic. So, I'm adopting your psychological approach as a reduction to absurdity. Here goes.

Chrissy, I'm very sensitive to manipulative, lying women. I don't feel comfortable with a woman who thinks she can read minds over the Internet. I don't like women who smuggle nasty lies into their thinking and writing to impugn others. Those women are probably just nasty liars. Men can sense that kind of vibe, Chrissy. Man-hating bitches like that just aren't what I'm looking for. I hope you can see a way to change your vibe, because neither myself nor any of my successful male friends would want to be with a bitter hag. Change your ways Chrissy, and you won't have to be so bitter. You won't have to hate. It's for your own good, you know?

How stupid does that sound? About as stupid as when you do it, Chrissy.

So, it's been requested that women give advice on how to spot a gold digger. We've defined a gold-digger as someone who wants a fling where you spend money on her, but has no intention of a serious relationship.

Here are my thoughts...

1) If she is much better looking for a woman her age than you are for a man your age, then unless you have some serious personal attributes in common that are fairly unusual she might be one.
2) If you are over 30 and she is in her early twenties, she probably sees you as fling-who-will-take-her-somewhere-fancy material.
3) To expand on #1 and #2, if there is great disparity in the overall quality between you and her on the classic 1-10 scales in looks, age, social charm, the way you dress, other superficial and yet noticeable attributes, she may well be a gold digger.

By "serious connection" I don't mean you both generally get along, I mean you both have attributes that the other thought they'd never find in someone else. Something rare. Like you're both vegan hunters or something. ("I never thought I'd meet another vegan who liked shooting deer!")

I hate to say it, but if you're a 5 and she's a 10... well...

I'm expanding my answer on how to spot a gold digger.

Essentially, what is being asked, is how to spot a mean girl. Girls, I think, are better at this than guys. Guys get blinded by their sense of beauty. They don't always realize what a psycho-bitch the mean popular girl is, because, well, she's a cute psycho-bitch. But the girls know.

It's funny, whenever my husband meets a woman he thinks is pretty, he talks about how nice she is. He has confused "pretty" with "nice". Now, he has a wide range of what he likes... anything feminine, be it kittenish, matronly, vampish, whatever... but even so, he lets beauty be the deciding factor in whether or not he thinks someone is nice.

So more spotting...
* If every guy in the room wants her, she has a lot of power to pick and choose, and to abuse. Is every pretty girl mean and evil? No. But pretty girls who are mean will eat you alive.
* Women who spend excessive amounts of time on their appearance, beyond usual maintenance, are often high-maintenance. Always? No. Often. If they spend a ton of time in the salon, though, it is often for the resulting power they will wield. ESPECIALLY IF YOU MEET THEM SOMEPLACE LIKE A BAR.

"It really does help to go where the person you'd be into might hang out."

Don't forget this: go to school. Even if it's been years, you'll automatically have something in common with somebody you meet there.

Jeff, you sound very angry and bitter for a man whose methods have allegedly lured a hot blonde lawyer into his bed.

If she exists, I'm wondering how she likes it when she disagrees with you and you refer to that as evidence that she's being "illogical" and "overemotional". Or when you say things like "Women really don't care about the difficulties and pressures men face", "women are wiley", "women are good manipulators"
and so forth. You make a lot of comments like that, and ick, it's a serious turn-off.

Speaking as a hot brunette lawyer, you could take me to freaking Paris for our first date, but I'd be walking out the door at the very first statement like that. (Actually, I'd be out the door when you asked me to go to Paris for a first date, but never mind.) Give me a nice, laid-back guy who asks me out for a run in the park and treats me to Starbucks afterward for a first date, and doesn't assume women are all greedy golddiggers out for his wallet. (I met my current dude in a running club. I highly recommend running, cycling and hiking clubs as venues for meeting non-screwed-up, non "gold-digging" people of both sexes -- doesn't hurt that they're in good shape, too.)

By the way -- I completely agree with those who said the theater thing is too much for a first date. You've way misinterpreted Amy's advice. You keep ignoring the fact that her first date with Gregg involved him buying her a soda. I suspect you keep ignoring it because it's hard to scream about "gold-diggers" when we're talking two dollars for coffee.

I'm actually not so on board with much of the evolutionary dating talk on this board. I think there's *some* validity to it, but it gets a bit overstrained. My theory is more along the lines of "here are the societal mores, and the signals you're sending with your behavior". Taking that aside, though, *you* seem to be a firm believer in the evolutionary theory of dating, given your statements like "women evolved to be manipulative" "the female desire to acquire unearned resources for herself and her progeny" and so forth. Given you swallow all that, I don't see how you can walk away from Amy's caveman philosophy on treating a woman to a coffee on the first date. It seems like you swallow the evolutionary stuff when it suits you (i.e., proving women are inherently greedy bitches), and reject it utterly when it doesn't (i.e., when you might have to spring for a coffee).

I agree with the general gist of the comments that maybe the women are more creeped out that the LW is sharing such personal details so soon and not so much by the details themselves.

The rest of this is in response to Jeff's assertion that women are self-absorbed and haven't offered any clear advise on how to spot gold-diggers. First of all, I do think that it would feel awful to believe that someone was interested in you for you and then find out that they were only in it for the money. That sucks that it happened to you many times (apparently). Secondly, I've never seen you giving women advice on how to spot guys who trying get a girlfriend solely to disguise their homosexuality. And the reason for that may not be that you don't feel sorry for women who wind up in that situation. It might just be that you yourself are not gay and not trying to use women as sexual camoflauge so its not in your radar to even spot that. Which I don't think makes you a self-absorbed jerk... It just means that you're human. Thirdly, its not like all women hide in the girls locker rooms and whisper secret tips to each other on how to suck guys for every penny they're worth. Well...I mean maybe the gold diggers (and why would they tell you how to spot them?) but other women such as your lawyer girl friend don't, since they are too busy being physically fit, financially successful, and generally awesome.
My only advice I can think of for avoiding parasites would be to stick with women in your socio-economic bracket. If going to the "the theatre' is important to you, maybe only date women who have bought tickets there on their own dime in the past. If you're taking women there to solely to impress them..then stop doing that. But it sounds like you've found someone whose not a gold digger. You have fixed your own problem, you are now a human being on the path to achieving self-actualization, therefore you don't need us. You're obviously well-educated...maybe you could grace Amy's pages with something new now that the problem has been fixed.

The LW was rightly criticized for failing to approach women and for his approach in approaching women.

I also had a care for why LW might have difficulty. Can you imagine that? Bitter old me.

Lots of guys have difficulty approaching women. I explained why: the same reason sales people get sales call reluctance. It's s a well known, well understood psychological problem that afflicts people who must endure rejection day in and day out. Sales call reluctance has ruined the careers of some top sales people I personally know. These people were not pussies, yet the daily rejection wore them down.

They were able to overcome it, mostly, using methods from behavioral and cognitive psychology. I suggested that the LW could benefit from the same methods. Crazy, I know. The bitterness and all.

One of the reasons there is so much rejection is the prevalence of professional daters and gold diggers. That's how this all came into the conversation.

After the usual opprobrium, I asked women here for concrete advice for avoiding gold diggers. Here's a summary of methods, in the order they were offered. 'You' refers to a hypothetical man.

1. Don't date women who are much higher on the 1-10 scale than you are. (NicoleK)


2. Don't date women who are desired by lots of other men. (NicoleK)


3. Don't date women who spend lots of time on their appearance. (NicoleK)


4. Don't date women you meet in bars. (NicoleK)


5. Don't date women outside your socio-economic bracket. (Lily)

Jeff, you sound very angry and bitter for a man whose methods have allegedly lured a hot blonde lawyer into his bed.

Anther Internet mind-reader. Amy, you should write a book about this. Women do this kind of thing as a habit. When they encounter spirited opposition, they appear to have a deep-seated, almost unconscious need to explain that opposition by reference to psychological urges in their opponent. To me, it's creepy.

You make a lot of comments like that, and ick, it's a serious turn-off. Speaking as a hot brunette lawyer, you could take me to freaking Paris for our first date, but I'd be walking out the door at the very first statement like that.

This is another common ploy used by women. It's an inappropriate switch of the rhetorical context. In this case, Gail, you have confused a blog discussion about the perils men face in dating with an actual approach on you.

This is the weird self-absorption I mentioned previously. Gail, this is not a date. The kind of rhetoric appropriate on a date is not appropriate here. If you really are a lawyer, you'd have realized that.

Also, it's not just the rhetorical context. Notice the peculiar twist of the object of the discussion. Gail sets up the problem as one of how to appeal to women, and she becomes the standard by which these appeals are to be judged.

Both of these ploys are designed to give Gail, a woman, a rhetorical advantage over a man, me. You see, if a man is constantly trying to appeal to a woman, he'll never be criticizing her. How great is that when you want to win an argument?

Hey, wait a minute. She's a lawyer. Maybe she does know these ploys and is using them to gain an advantage. For shame!

Taking that aside, though, *you* seem to be a firm believer in the evolutionary theory of dating, given your statements like "women evolved to be manipulative" "the female desire to acquire unearned resources for herself and her progeny" and so forth. Given you swallow all that, I don't see how you can walk away from Amy's caveman philosophy on treating a woman to a coffee on the first date. It seems like you swallow the evolutionary stuff when it suits you (i.e., proving women are inherently greedy bitches), and reject it utterly when it doesn't (i.e., when you might have to spring for a coffee).

Damn. A real argument. Reasoned even. Although, full of the dishonest, uncharitable imputations lawyers are taught to use. Confounding generalizations with universalizations and the like. Eh. We work with what we have.

I've actually dealt with this in many previous posts, Gail. Men evolved mechanisms for selecting mates that are directly competitive with female selection strategies. I've noted that men can play two roles: the provider and the rake. I've argued that, in our modern society, it makes little sense to play the provider role.

Men are just as outfitted to be the rake as to be the provider. So we can choose to behave congruent with our evolved masculine natures, while at the same time avoiding the excessive financial burdens of gyno-centric dating. Also, such men will appeal to both independent women and even women seeking a dalliance between providers.

Lastly, even the male role as provider is misunderstood. Men evolved as protectors, not really providers. In fact, among higher order primates, it's women who provide not men. They exchange provider behaviors for protection.

As you can see, there is no contradiction. You have erroneously assumed that the female coupling strategy is the only one. It isn't.

Well, I missed the cut and paste on this one.

By the way -- I completely agree with those who said the theater thing is too much for a first date. You've way misinterpreted Amy's advice. (Gail)

It's still astonishes me how often women will just make things up. No one has asked me for the facts about the theater incident. No one. The women here have just invented a fantastic story. It's as instructive of the female mind as it is maddening.

You keep ignoring the fact that her first date with Gregg involved him buying her a soda. I suspect you keep ignoring it because it's hard to scream about "gold-diggers" when we're talking two dollars for coffee. (Gail)

Interesting. You know absolutely nothing about qualifying prospects, yet you feel confident enough to have such strident views. It's important for you realize that dating is for men quite unlike what dating is for women.

Amy was invited to have an orange drink, you got that one wrong too. However, it wasn't a blind date. They had met, and Gregg invited. Who invites pays. In fact, this is one of the disqualifying behaviors I use for women. If they invite me somewhere and they don't pay, I dump them.

The issue isn't the two dollars for coffee. It's about the kind of woman who won't buy her own coffee when it's a blind date, just two strangers meeting. Men need to disqualify women unless they positively demonstrate they are good mate material. Men need to dump women early and often who don't demonstrate their good standing.

Lots of guys pay for stuff because they think that's what it takes to get laid. But a man can get laid for free just about any time. The thing guys lack is selection skills. What holds them back? They think only about how to appeal to women, when they should be thinking about how the woman appeals to them. That includes a sense for the resources needed to sustain the relationship. There really is no need to date high maintenance women. There are plenty of good women who are financially fair and sexual.

The problem men have is not just in the approach, but in the very purpose of the approach: disqualification. It Saves time. It saves money. It saves ego.

I most certainly am serious. If you're not a 10, and the woman is, something's up.

And feel free to go on and on about how you have evolved to only like a certain type of woman... and I say sure. But that doesn't mean that the certain type of woman likes you.

There are not enough 10s to go around. They usually go for other 10s.

People don't usually go to bars for serious relationships.

You can wish it were otherwise, but its not. If you aren't a 10, and she is, and you are rich, that is probably why she is going for you. Sorry, that's the truth.

And by "a lot of time on her appearance", I mean far and above the usual. Most women spend a lot of time on appearance compared to men. I mean compared to other women. People who are very into the way they look are often vain. Vanity is often a characteristic of a gold-digger. Is every woman who spends a lot of time on her looks a vain gold-digger? Of course not. But you asked what the warning signs were.

You can wish it wasn't so, but that's the way it is.

You asked for the signs, you don't like the answers.

Nicole, let it go. Jeff is deliberately being obtuse. He not only revels in it, he's made a career of it. Obviously, he's having fun with it. o.O

NicoleK: I think the number of golddigger women is actually fairly small. It seems like there are more of them because they are highly motivated to hang out where single men are, and to do things to get the attention of men. To an extent, I think they crowd better women out. And as I said in my post above, I think they tend to concentrate in certain areas of the country.

I wasn't very clear in my comment before.

Amy, I was not directing my comment at you. I'm absolutely sure that you would give excellent advice to anyone who wrote in on any topic, including the one I brought up. And I believe it that gold diggers probably are more common than gay men using women as covers. I was fighting a lost cause of trying to get Jeff to see that me and most likely the other female commenters are not maliciously trying to hide something from him. I was trying to say that maybe the reason we are not giving more in depth insights is because as women who aren't gold diggers ourselves, we don't really know beyond stereotypes what gold diggers are like. That's true for me anyway. I thought maybe if he compared my comments to a straight guy trying to tell women how to spot a gay guy who is using his girlfriend as a cover for his homosexuality; that he might understand that its not because that guy is holding out on the woman to be mean or something. That straight guy might feel bad for a women when she had that happen, but he might not know what to say to help her avoid having it happen again since he isn't looking to use women in that way. Looking back it was an awkward metaphor and I should not have used it.

Jeff - I guess I wasn't very clear at all in anything I said in that post. What I said about looking at a girl's earning power and comparing it to your own to as a way of telling whether she's a gold digger or not. I meant it more as a loose guideline than as a hard and fast rule. I think that there are lots of women out there who make significantly less money than you and aren't gold diggers. But I thought of it as more something to consider if you are already having doubts as to a woman's motivations for dating you. But it was an educated guess and nothing more.

As a broke college student who has only dated other broke college students, I haven't experienced actually having a big budget for dates. The dates I've gone on tend to involve picnics, hike, and if we are really into each other maybe one or the other of us will spring for coffee, or pizza if we're really going glamourous. At least at my college the general expectation is that whoever asks the other on the first date pays. Then if they go out again, they figure out a way to split the costs evenly. And honestly, I think its a good thing. The way I see it, guys in the fifties expected the girls they dated to put out and guys in my generation expect girls they date to pitch in financially. For us sex becomes more of an expression of love rather than one rewarding the other. And I think it improves the quality of relationship for both men and women when things are even. Men don't have to go broke just to get laid and women don't have to hide the fact that they enjoy sex too. So Jeff, it sucks that until recently, you haven't been able to enjoy a more egalitarian relationship. But I'm glad you found somebody who isn't using you.

Catspajamas (13 Nov, 5:07 PM) said, "'... sensitive, piano-playing, cookie-baking boyfriend ...' Ummm. I just got a little damp. Seriously."

Uh, thanks? I don't believe anybody's ever told me that before...

Sorry, a little crude I guess. But you're welcome!

Flynne's right. I'm going to try to ignore Jeff. But what the heck, I'm going to pass on a few golddigger-avoidance tips to the dudes.

Look for a woman who is really into her job. I'm not saying that every woman who hates her job is a golddigger -- of course that's not true. And I'm not equating golddigging with poverty -- it comes at all socioeconomic groups. But I think a woman who really likes what she's doing is s lot less likely to be looking for some dude to rescue her from it. And she's less likely to have time to go on dates just for the sake of free dinners, so she's likely to restrict her dating to guys she actually has some interest in.

I think women who live alone and *like* it are less likely to be golddiggers. She's living her life -- not waiting for someone to bail her out of it and buy her things.

In general, I guess, look for someone who seems happy with herself and her life -- without you. Sure, maybe she doesn't neeeeeeeed you as much as the one fluttering her false eyelashes at you, but she's a hell of a lot less likely to waste your time, break your heart, and yes, Jeff, pick your wallet. Not to mention she's likely to be better adjusted and more fun.

I also think it helps to meet her at an athletic, charity, community, church, school or work-related activity instead of a bar. I previously suggested running and cycling clubs. The great thing about this is that you can hang out a bit, running or cycling or hiking or whatever, before asking her out, which gives you both a better chance to assess each other before there's a date. (It's also really easy to make the first date a run and a cup of coffee.) You know you have a good, healthy common interest. Also, it's a stereotype, but a woman who will let you see her sweaty, with no makeup and a baseball cap is way less likely to be a shallow golddigger. If you think she's pretty in her running gear, wait'll she cleans up for the date. My running group has had several marriages in the last few years, and a ton of relationships. And even if you don't meet Princess Charming, the worst case scenario is that you get in shape, and you probably make some good friends too (and don't forget that those friends will have single women friends . . .)

And to sum up NicoleK's and Lily's advice: Look for a woman who is about your equal. Jeff seemed to interpret it as "go for an ugly chick no one wants". Not at all. If you want someone who will want you for yourself, go for someone who all round is about your league. Someone way out of your league in some way -- looks or age or socioeconomically or whatever -- is not necessarily looking at you as a sugar daddy but, hey, the odds are greatly increased. Keep your eyes open going in.

I gotta say, though, I really am amazed at how unrealistic some guys are about what their league really is. I have a short, balding, middle-aged colleague (also a lawyer) who is pretty bitter because hot 28 year olds constantly turn him down for dates, or use him for free dinners and disappear. Meanwhile, he snubs and puts down pleasant-looking, kind, intelligent women closer to his own age bracket who, frankly, are more attractive than he is and way too good for him. Then he wonders aloud why all women are bitches. I have no sympathy.

Speaking as a guy who has rarely been rejected, the key is self confidence...and lots of it...and apparently the LW doesn't have it.

I suggest you take a crash course in marketing and especially sales. Seriously...sales. Not only will you learn something that can be a big help in your professional life, but you will also learn a lot about selling yourself in the romance department. Learn how to work a room, talk to lots of people, and soon you will have them asking you out - not the other way around. I too have always hated the double standards, so I learned to play them to my advantage.

Popular culture likes to tell us that women hold all of the cards, but in my experience the real card holders are men: single women usually sit and wait and if they come on too strong they are looked at in a pretty negative light. So come in, say a few words, crack a joke or two, and move on...and come back later. Often women are intrigued by a man who is confident and who isn't desperate, and who gives her a smile, but doesn't linger. I can't tell you the number of parties I've been to that I arrived a bit late, played the room a bit, and ended up with the woman some other guy was over-working all night.

So instead of the "shotgun" tactic suggested by some of the comments above, learn what you want, learn to go after it with confidence, learn to not take yourself too seriously, and learn to be yourself while selling your assets.

A key item to remember: there is always tomorrow and, just as your mother/father used to say, there are plenty of fish in the sea (after all, women outnumber men). In your desperation to hook one fish, you may missed the school swimming right next it. Play the school and have them come to you.

Another key item: respect is everything. Show it and demand it. A man who demands respect while generously bestowing it will go much further then the jerk who simply sees a nice pair. Oh, and note that showing her respect does not mean groveling. Any woman who demands groveling isn't worth wasting your time on.

Finally, use your innocence to your advantage. I have been told time and time again that one of the attractive points about me is that I come across as innocent even while telling the nastiest of jokes. An innocent yet flirtatious smile seals the deal.

That's about it. You can do it I'm sure. I'm not some hunky guy...I just know what sells. Just have fun with it!

Oh, and Gail is absolutely right: look for professional women. I always have...in fact, I married one and if I were single again, I wouldn't even consider dating a non-professional. A woman who is just looking for an ATM may be fun in the sack for a night, but know when to eat her ATM card.

Again, learn to play the game. If she is a gold digger, then treat her as a gold digger....be respectful, but understand that she is a gold digger. A year or so before I met my wife, I was hanging out with a woman who was a hot blond, with 2 kids, and a psycohusband who just loved the idea of me taking her out for expensive nights on the town...then I found out that she had the 2 kids, the psycohusband, no college education, and that she lived in a trailerpark and I understood why she wanted to hang out with me (incidentally, she also turned out to be a psyco-stalker, but that's another story).

The stereotype is that women a choosy when it comes to socioeconomic status. I've dated up and down the ladder, and I can tell you: you should be just as choosy. If she doesn't have her own money, move along. If she has more then you, all the better (ie: no reason to feel threatened). But do not date down from your current station by much. A little bit is fine - especially if she is working to improve her potential via grad school or something - but too much is a bad indicator. Don't be an ATM unless you just want a quickie...just remember to wrap it!

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with everything Jeff said, in many ways the advice given to the LW was correct, although from personal experience it can be easily misconstrued.

I see lots of comments along the lines of 'be a man' or 'grow a pair', but what do they really mean. You can start asking women out until you're blue in the face, and end up getting a negative reputation from your peer group.

"Jeez that guy is a loser."

Well, who cares what other people think right? Clearly the LW does and being told to ignore others opinions of him is probably what got him into this situation in the first place. What the guy is lacking is confidence and saying "hey, get confident stupid" is probably counter productive.

When you've got low self esteem rejection seems a helluva lot worse than when you're sure of yourself, and like some other posters have mentioned women know when a man lacks self confidence. That's why some guys take the 'be friends' approach to women, and fool themselves into thinking that they're 'different' to other men (read: more caring, empathic etc).

Although it's not the question the LW asked, and this isn't a psychiatrist's couch, but I think the problem lies with him not having very high self esteem or much confidence in himself (hence the need to be told fewer partners doesn't make him less of a man).

Mark, I think I dig what you say. And I wonder how many people base their self-esteem on success in the dating world? Looking back (with horror) on my younger years, I think it would be tempting to do so -- a boyfriend or girlfriend is a symbol of one's desirablity. On the other hand, if you don't have the self-confidence to begin with, the rejections could send you into a self-esteem death spiral.

So, based on what Mark and everybody else has said, maybe some useful advice to the letter writer should be:

- Don't base your self-esteem on how many women you get. It's not a useful measurement of your worth.
- Don't volunteer information about your past romantic history. You don't owe anybody that, at least not right away.
- Don't go overboard trying to impress women you do date, especially early on.
- Don't try to be something you're not. If you're a software engineer and she likes rodeo cowboys, you're probably out of luck. But some ladies like software engineers.

Does that cover things pretty well?

This is sneaking up on hilarious.

I have to say I don't hear my single buddies complaining about gold diggers too often, and I didn't have many run-ins in my younger days, but here's my take:

1) you generally can't tell beforehand why she's dating you;
2) you can generally tell quite easily after you've been out together why she's dating you;
3) some girls are worth the gold.

Not to cast doubt on all this "evolutionary dating" stuff, but typically I'd say that theoretical models don't do much to predict individual behaviour. So maybe you find yourself dating a b**ch because she's evolved to want your money -- but maybe your dating a b**ch because you insist on acting like an ass, or because she has a great rack.

Beats me, but guys always have the option of sitting alone in the dark with their precious money safely tucked into their wallets....

My last BF before DH lasted 4 years, all through college, but we were both older than the usual students. I was his second. He was quite the engineering geek. I happen to like that, and I am pretty darn attractive myself. I found it great. NO one's bad habits to undo. If I had to guess, I'd say DH hasn't been with a lot, and that's fine too.

LW might want to start watching The Pickup Artist, I think on E (or maybe VH!?) ANyway, a guy that's great getting women teaches some hopeless cases how to be confident, talk to women, etc. As he says, it's not about getting tail, it's about having a life. Which you can't do if you can't talk to the opposite gender. Self confidence is 90% of attraction.

Oh yeah...the other 10% is being her type, and not being an ass (unless that's her type, but do you want that?)

WHoever invites should pay. I always pay my share, and I do my share of inviting.

Another thing a guy can do is try to think what would motivate her to go out with him. Try to put yourself in her position and see what you bring to the arrangement. Are you hot, fit, great at conversation, charming, attentive? Listen to what she says and then see if you have the qualities she's looking for.

Cheers rpm daddy, I pretty much concur with what you say, especially with the self esteem = girlfriend equation. However there's one thing I don't quite agree with:

-Don't try to be something you're not.

I know you didn't mean it this way, but I'm going to use an analogy; I'm no sailor, but I do know how to steer a yacht. Now I'm not saying that you should pull the wool over a woman's eyes, but there are certain things you should and shouldn't do with dating. Just because you're not a player doesn't mean you shouldn't act like one (hey, those guys get all the girls right?)

But they get the girls because women are attracted to them, so they must be doing something right. The trouble is that many women complain about such guys because they're just looking to sleep with as many women as possible, but what's wrong with behaving like one to find your ideal woman?

I think that the LW wants to be this lovely, non-offensive little puppy dog since he thinks being a player is wrong. What he doesn't understand is that there's nothing wrong with being charming, confident and self assured, he just seems to relate such behaviour to men who treat women as notches on their bedposts.

Hi Chrissy,

Just read your post and I have to disagree there. I remember back to my college years (incidentally when I had the most problems with dating) and I'd listen to what girls wanted from a man and tried to be that man (you know, the kind, caring sensitive type, who wasn't afraid to cry) and then wondered why they went out with the neanderthals who sold drugs on campus.

Maybe it's my age now, but when men and women are in their late teens and early twenties they don't really know what they want. The trouble with listening to what another person wants (especially at college) is if you really like them you'll try to become that which they want. That's not good.

The reason the drug dealers at my college were so attractive is because they had money, drugs, were popular, a high social standing and didn't conform.

It's vastly diferent now (in my 30's) but even so I know that what a person wants, isn't necessarily what they need in a partner.

"Men are just as outfitted to be the rake as to be the provider. So we can choose to behave congruent with our evolved masculine natures, while at the same time avoiding the excessive financial burdens of gyno-centric dating. Also, such men will appeal to both independent women and even women seeking a dalliance between providers."

Let's assume that's correct. A "rake" is pretty much the male equivalent of the golddigger --- someone who's out to get something from the opposite sex without giving genuine love in return. (Plenty of women would like advice on how to spot the guy who's pretending he's out for a relationship but just wants to get laid.)

But here's the thing: Not every guy can "choose" to be a successful rake. Why? Because if *all* a woman -- any woman -- wants is to get laid without a relationship, she pretty much has her choice of any dude she wants. She doesn't even have to be pretty. That's just biology -- dudes are pretty into the whole getting laid thing, as a rule, if there are no strings. So a woman has no motivation to allow some ugly or just OK-looking guy to be a "rake" with her. If you're going to set out to be a rake, you'd better be pretty damn attractive.

Said Mark, "The trouble with listening to what another person wants (especially at college) is if you really like them you'll try to become that which they want. That's not good."

Exactly, Mark. That's about what I was trying to say a couple posts ago (the one you commented on), but I think you expressed it better. And it doesn't have much to do with self-confidence or charm. Cheers.

I guess I was assuming the guy was going to be brutally honest with himself about who he was and and what he had to offer. You can't change your height or ethnic background, your weight and fitness level you can change but it would have to be permanent to keep the girl. And you're right, sometimes people think they want one thing, but they wind up being attracted to something else entirely.

Jeff, you're right about a lot of things, but I'm afraid you'll never win this argument; women (like men) are fundamentally animals, and the errors in reasoning (and, yes, manipulation strategies *shock* .. actually I don't see why that's shocking) may be obvious and clear to someone experienced in thinking with reason and logic, but they are not to most people, and most women (and men) don't want to really see the truth about themselves anyway.

This doesn't bother most men because most men aren't intelligent enough either to have not only the appropriate quality and levels of meta-cognition, but the expectation that same should be present in others. Bah. The key is figuring out how to "accept" that people are inherently illogical and flawed and hypocritical - not necessarily "accept" in the sense of condoning poor intellectual standards, but "accept" in the sense of "not let it ruin your day".

In other words rather just have fun. *In spite of* the flaws. I mean, bottom line, you will not change things, nor will I. There's that old cliche about "accepting the things you cannot change". You aren't going to change the evolutionary programming in millions of women overnight by writing lengthy rational blog posts. And you are pretty much in no way going to get women to see the truth (save for a tiny, rare minority of women, who I recently discovered do exist). But frankly it's a loser's game trying to convince anyone, you cannot attain anything (unless you really want someone to just admit what seems obviously correct to you ... understandable ... but frankly it's probably not going to happen, better to be content that you know you're right, and then just enjoy life further. It's OK to let people be flawed (and be ignorant thereof) ... or at least, that's the only practical way forward.

Mark makes a good point; going out there and getting rejected 200 times isn't necessarily going to build confidence, it may well have the opposite effect of pounding the guy's esteem into the ground ... women are very good at spotting the shy "loser" who is trying to overcome his lack of self-confidence in a forced and awkward way and they hate that and some are mean and will jump on it horribly too. A better approach might be to start with a comfortable more in-control low-pressure environment where you can be yourself and just talk to girls etc. e.g. hobbies such as through hiking or cycling clubs, as someone mentioned.

I do not even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was great.
I do not know who you are but certainly you're going to a famous blogger if you aren't already ;) Cheers!

I'm really inspired with your writing abilities as well as with the structure in your blog. Is that this a paid theme or did you modify it your self? Anyway stay up the nice quality writing, it is uncommon to peer a nice weblog like this one today..