Thread: So what do women offer men?

dad_savage and Percy,

The pair of you can afford to be chivalrous because the dating scene was much fairer when you were young. Women's standards were sane enough back then give most chivalrous men a chance to pick up a date without forcing them to give up their respect and act like a bad boy.

In today's society, young women ignore the shy, sensitive young men who are moralistic and caring because it's "uncool" to not possess a bad boy trait or two. This places shy, sensitive young men in a very vulnerable position, as they need to reinvent themselves if they want to gain women's attention, or stay who they are and live a lonely existence. Sadly, not all of the shy, sensitive young men are strong enough to become the sort of man that modern women lust over, thus meaning they'll be miserable if they reinvent themselves and miserable if they don't.

A lot of shy, sensitive men are used by women who wish to obtain emotional gratification. The shy, sensitive men are aware of this and are hurt by it. An increasing amount of these men are developing a strong distrust of women for this reason.

Please do not condemn the influx of shy, sensitive young men who are excessively distrustful of women and reluctant to uphold chivalry. Refusing to uphold the tenets of chivalry is a passive-aggressive response to women's callous rejection of shy, sensitive men. You cannot blame a shy, sensitive young man for possessing so much anger: he lives in a society where he's shunned by women for being the sort of guy that they say they want, and has to look on as the guys women complain about are the ones who are undeservingly popular among women.

Try to walk a mile in these men's shoes before you shun them for not being chivalrous.

I can agree, CK, that the rules - and women's behaviour - were different in my young day but I do not suggest that Chivalry ought to be the way for anyone particularly.

There is a difference between what is generally derided as Chivalry and what is plain good manners.

There is also a difference between treating all women the same and discriminating between them, distinguishing the good woman from her obnoxious peers.

There is also a huge difference between the sort of 'women' that a young man knows and those an older one knows. The former are barely women; they are girls really, with the cradle marks still on their bums; immature and as adolescent as the young men they 'hang with'.

If there is one aspect that I consistently try to get across it is that men, young, old, shy or bold, MUST value themselves first and foremost. And well before they try to put a value on a woman. It should go without saying, but probably needs to be said though, that such a self needs to be valuable and not simply declared as such. A well developed self, with sound Character and Integrity and Authenticity is valuable.

It should be a young man's priority task. All too many put their musculature ahead of the Character and simply make a Charicature of manhood.

Just as far too many young women have a hugely inflated idea about themselves, so have far too many young men. The over-confident and egotistical young men far outnumber the shy sensitive ones.

Quote from Percy

I can agree, CK, that the rules - and women's behaviour - were different in my young day but I do not suggest that Chivalry ought to be the way for anyone particularly.

There is a difference between what is generally derided as Chivalry and what is plain good manners.

There is also a difference between treating all women the same and discriminating between them, distinguishing the good woman from her obnoxious peers.

There is also a huge difference between the sort of 'women' that a young man knows and those an older one knows. The former are barely women; they are girls really, with the cradle marks still on their bums; immature and as adolescent as the young men they 'hang with'.

If there is one aspect that I consistently try to get across it is that men, young, old, shy or bold, MUST value themselves first and foremost. And well before they try to put a value on a woman. It should go without saying, but probably needs to be said though, that such a self needs to be valuable and not simply declared as such. A well developed self, with sound Character and Integrity and Authenticity is valuable.

It should be a young man's priority task. All too many put their musculature ahead of the Character and simply make a Charicature of manhood.

Just as far too many young women have a hugely inflated idea about themselves, so have far too many young men. The over-confident and egotistical young men far outnumber the shy sensitive ones.

Percy,

I agree. Very well said.

Quote from Chris Key

dad_savage and Percy,

The pair of you can afford to be chivalrous because the dating scene was much fairer when you were young. Women's standards were sane enough back then give most chivalrous men a chance to pick up a date without forcing them to give up their respect and act like a bad boy.

In today's society, young women ignore the shy, sensitive young men who are moralistic and caring because it's "uncool" to not possess a bad boy trait or two. This places shy, sensitive young men in a very vulnerable position, as they need to reinvent themselves if they want to gain women's attention, or stay who they are and live a lonely existence. Sadly, not all of the shy, sensitive young men are strong enough to become the sort of man that modern women lust over, thus meaning they'll be miserable if they reinvent themselves and miserable if they don't.

A lot of shy, sensitive men are used by women who wish to obtain emotional gratification. The shy, sensitive men are aware of this and are hurt by it. An increasing amount of these men are developing a strong distrust of women for this reason.

Please do not condemn the influx of shy, sensitive young men who are excessively distrustful of women and reluctant to uphold chivalry. Refusing to uphold the tenets of chivalry is a passive-aggressive response to women's callous rejection of shy, sensitive men. You cannot blame a shy, sensitive young man for possessing so much anger: he lives in a society where he's shunned by women for being the sort of guy that they say they want, and has to look on as the guys women complain about are the ones who are undeservingly popular among women.

Try to walk a mile in these men's shoes before you shun them for not being chivalrous.

Understandable.

I don't see this changing anytime soon, really. It's happened because the social taboos around female promiscuity were removed. With the removal of these taboos, and the exhortations to young women to satisfy themselves sexually, we have seen the re-emergence of pre-civilizational sexual practices for women: namely, hypergamy. In a state where women are not restricted sexually, they will tend to all chase the same men -- and by definition many men are left out of the equation. The men that the women are chasing have "phenotypes" that women are attracted to: dominance, aggression, "game", very good looks, status, etc. So what's happening with folks in their 20s and up to mid 30s is that women are still in their phase of chasing "Mr. Big", and overlooking the vast majority of men --> some women do this by throwing themselves at the desirables and sleeping with them, other women do it by "holding out" for the desirables, but in either case, many women are simply uninterested in the vast majority of men at these ages.

The situation changes somewhat when women reach their mid 30s. At that point, many of them realize that they cannot hope to get one of the "Mr. Bigs", because these men have already married someone else, or are simply not interested in marrying at all. So then these women turn to the men that they looked past during their younger years. And marriages happen. Women trade-off their attraction to Mr. Big to choose men as partners to whom they are less attracted but who may make good partners (financial stability, personal stability, etc.). That sounds well, but a good number of these marriages end 5-10 years out because the woman simply becomes bored, or realizes she doesn't want to live the rest of her life with a man to whom she is not attracted. And that's where the second aspect -- the lifting of the norms of enforced monogamy in marriage itself -- comes into play. Women divorce and revert to hypergamy, because it "feels more natural" for them (and it is so).

The only way this genie gets put back into the bottle is by changing the divorce laws and reinstituting socal taboos around promiscuity for men and women alike. And I don't see that happening soon. Instead I see the above pattern playing out in many lives again and again and again, because it fits the natural female cycle of hypergamy, and the social and legal obstacles to female hypergamy have been effectively removed.

I thought you sad not to go against nature.

Anyways why would these Mr. Big's who have the power in relationships marry? They would lose that power and the aura of unattainability which gets them women.

I agree that chivalry is different from just manners as Percy said. and it implies that women should get special treatment in relationships(which they should) but so should men. as long as it isn't one way.


And some aspects of chivalry is degrading such as men walking streetside so the cars splash on them and poop is thrown on them. Letting the woman pick the radio station. Walking down the stairs first so she can use you as something to soften her fall. Expecting you to be put yourself in between her and a dog. Getting the car in when its raining.

This isn't a sign of respect like opening a door. This is serving women


That remote control analogy also got me thinking as well. How men care about both parties enjoyment and women care only about theirs.


How often has a woman gone to man's house in the middle of the night to take care of him or comofrt him compared to how often or how willing a man would be to?

Some articles.


Here is an empowered woman.

http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmi...ng_advice.html


Maintaining an official scorecard isn’t necessary -- and could be counterproductive -- because a relationship is, or at least should be, flexible. Sometimes you'll get the dinner and she’ll get the drinks, sometimes you’ll go on a spending spree and sometimes she will -- it’s just a matter of staying in the ballpark of 3:1 throughout. Doing so will bring a healthy balance and establish a true feeling of shared responsibility in the relationship.

One woman even tried to use the myth of a wage gap to justify her selfishness.

: Totally agree. I am a lovely lass, and I would expect to be wined and dined, looked after and treated........but don't get me wrong - money-wise not forever! I would always always reciprocate at a later date and of course make my guy realise how I appreciated it....but i need to know that my guy wants to look after me and treat me from the beginning......and it doesn't always have to be expensive either - romance doesn't always cost. Generally (as much as we don't like it guys get paid more than us girlies too.) So guys, stump up - she will love you for it and decent ladies will always reciprocate and make you feel great for it! Good luck and happy dating!

Yes. A 3:1 ratio is shared responsibility.
Keep in mind this is after 3 months too.


http://lifestyle.msn.com/Relationshi...mentid=8319060


Sharing starts on the second or third date, but not in the way you frame it. It should be more like 100/0 followed by 0/100.

While Miss Manners appreciates and agrees with your desire to do your share, you are taking a business like approach. And this is a social situation.

Even back when gentlemen were expected to pay all the dating bills, ladies were supposed to reciprocate. They did it by inviting the gentlemen to home-cooked meals and through subterfuge — pretending that they had been given theater tickets, for example. While it is good to have this out in the open, you are attempting to do so by co-opting his privileges as a host and then offering to pay only for yourself.

Splitting things on alternate dates would be 75/25, but in any case is not courtship behavior. "Yes, I had dessert and you didn't, but your drinks cost more" is not a charming negotiation.

What you should be doing is reciprocating the gentleman's invitations. This means inviting him for outings that you plan and pay for entirely. The only relevance of your income is you would naturally plan something you could afford. A lady who made less would choose something more modest. The point is not the cost, but the graciousness of offering hospitality. Miss Manners' guess is that the other gentlemen you mention are not so much bothered by your large income as by your small attitude toward entertaining.


Perfect post. Seems that we have been lied to and dating was never one sided as women made it out to be.

Women probably pay LESS now than they did 50 years ago.

I think etiquette stopped being studied seriously by most men when women stopped communicating from behind their fans and started using the fannies instead..

I do think there should be some sort of chivalry where women show respect for men because most lack it these days. Whats the female version of giving up a seat or holding a door or carrying a package? Can't think of anything. There really is nothing women can do to be courteous and polite.

Besides what everyone here says. men give , women appreciate. as bannaa said that shows women lack of concern for men.


But it is funny to watch these chivalrous men debate each other.


http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10094
"A gentleman offers his seat to a lady, regardless of her condition. This is an interesting thread. Maybe we need to start a new thread on manners."

This is more than manners. This is just special treatment.


http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthr...d=1#post978236

Musicman, you are flogging a dead horse. Hasn't the poor bugger had enough?

You are continuing to raise issues of behaviour that are trivial, bordering on stupid and directing us to the ill-thought 'opinions' of adolescent half-wits.

Perhaps you could switch tracks and ask what women could do. Things that matter.

Quote from Crappy-article-writer, who can kiss my fuckin' arse

Defining the relationship usually occurs sometime around month three, and when it comes to who should pay, it’s around this time that payment obligations begin to shift. At this juncture, you should apply a new 3:1 ratio on the “who should pay” rule: For every three dates you pay for, she pays for one. You can plan to use this tactic for the remainder of the relationship too. Since we don’t live in a black-and-white world, however, there are a couple of caveats to this new dynamic: 1- It only applies to dates and trips together; 2- It’s only a general rule of thumb, not an explicit formula that you have to follow devotedly.

Maintaining an official scorecard isn’t necessary -- and could be counterproductive -- because a relationship is, or at least should be, flexible. Sometimes you'll get the dinner and she’ll get the drinks, sometimes you’ll go on a spending spree and sometimes she will -- it’s just a matter of staying in the ballpark of 3:1 throughout. Doing so will bring a healthy balance and establish a true feeling of shared responsibility in the relationship.

Flexible? Not so flexible that women might - shock, shock, horror, friggin' horror - have to pay as much, or even nearly as much, towards things as do men; flexible, my arse. Healthy balance? Yeah, healthy FOR WOMEN, I suppose. Shared responsibility? Yeah, sounds like the ratio levels of responsibility that women can enjoy when it comes to all matter of things, these days.

Usually, I feel down about my near-eternal 'single' status; times like this, however, not so much.......

Quote from Percy

Musicman, you are flogging a dead horse. Hasn't the poor bugger had enough?

You are continuing to raise issues of behaviour that are trivial, bordering on stupid and directing us to the ill-thought 'opinions' of adolescent half-wits.

Perhaps you could switch tracks and ask what women could do. Things that matter.

We could forget chivalry and aim for courtesy and efficiency.Like those guys said most men don't give up their seats anyways.

Percy it is trivial and stupid. I know that. But trivial things do often tell us major things like dyslexic bannana said, its way too unbalanced. men doing everything and women saying thank you won't work.

The dating bill is a bigger issue though.

Most women expect men to do Everything. Men are the initiators, planners, chauffeurs, wallet, entertainer, and unpaid bodyguards.

This is in general. I have known women who give more in relationships.

Quote from Percy

Musicman, you are flogging a dead horse. Hasn't the poor bugger had enough?

You are continuing to raise issues of behaviour that are trivial, bordering on stupid and directing us to the ill-thought 'opinions' of adolescent half-wits.

Perhaps you could switch tracks and ask what women could do. Things that matter.

All right. lets move on to truly important things.


Would a woman pick up her man from the bus stop in the middle of the night? just so he can have a warm meal, relax in the caretc etc

Come over in the middle of the night to take care of him or comfort him if he is sick? I know of a woman who was severely hurt in an accident and her medicine made her emotional and she started crying over physical pain. Would she be just as comforting and let him cry, complain etc?


On the concept of who is the emotionally stronger one or rock-Is this determined by gender or how much stuff one is dealing with and the number of outside emotional outlets? Men and women are generally equally emotional; but much of women's emotion is not genuine. it is minor and things that men suck up and things that all adults should suck up.


Does she show her affection through physical means? I mean non sexual physical contact. Does he generally lie on her chest at night or does he spoon her? This tells us who is generally the caretaking one in a relationship. If he needed more affection for whatever reason would she give it?


There should be no sleeping on the couch and NO doghouse.

Does she insult him in front of her friends or behind his back? Are his parents equally welcome at their home?


Going back to the remote control analogy would she choose something that they both like or only she iked?

Another major thing I have seen is if there is a separation women almost always sleep with someone.

Is this what you meant by a woman's love not lasting? Meaning it goes away at the first sign of problems?




And i think dating was more equal BEFORE feminism at least according to miss manners.

Finding a cheap prostitute or marrying a disabled woman sounds more appealling than dating the typical modern-age woman.

MM, I ask again.

What do YOU WANT women to do?

Tell you what, to make it easy, type "I want a woman who......" down the side of the screen twenty times and then fill in the dots.