Cheap. In the initial dates, men pay. We pay the bill, they provide the sex. If either side isn’t clear on that they are getting a raw deal.
One of my mates is a high roller HENRY (High earner not rich yet). Self made. On track to be a millionaire. Women just know. He dresses like a frat boy unless in the office. when women ask the question about what he does he says UNEMPLOYED. They know better. women try moving in and nesting. STOP !
Ha I would never want a woman to feel obligated to fuuck me just because I paid for dinner, what a toxic mentality rooted in lack.
I didn’t make the rules. That’s how the mating dance works.
You sound new at this. All women want you to pay the tab when you go out. The ones that don’t have low interest.
That is a straw man argument. The person who pays (the gentlemen) is the one picking the venue. The gentleman treats within his means, the fool lavishes to impress.
No. Fair is if the guy and the gal go Dutch on all dates and don’t have sex.
Women are smarter than you think in this arena. Did it ever occur to you that they don’t go on second, third, and fourth dates with guys they don’t want to fvck?
That's how it works for men that are attempting to compensate for their insecurities with their wallets.
I've had plenty of women offer to split the check and proceed to bang my brains out less than an hour later then subsequently go on multiple dates with me or simply come over.
I've heard this before.
This is assuming she gets nothing out of sex, which tells me you believe you have nothing to offer in the sack. This is the exact opposite of an 'i am the prize' mentality.
I've heard plenty of stories of women milking men's wallets for x number of dates simply because he always pays for everything, stringing him along for the free meals. Doesn't matter if she's posh or from the trailer park, many of them try it.
Yeah and even then tge dork is likely to get screwed eventually over if she's attractive.
Better yet align to females who are in that space. Guys try to use intelligent females and downplay them over the more social but "dumber" visual stunners. So the more intelligent babes are always complaining that men try to "use" them.
The income thresholds in this post are eerily accurate.
The fixation on insecurity is projection.
Dating is conditional. "Unconditional love" is blue pill bullshvt. If your wife gained 60 lbs in your marriage, would you still "love her unconditionally?"
None of these concepts are mutually exclusive. Gentlemen pay the bill when they extend the invitation. Whether you choose to accept it or not, all women want you to pick up the tab when dating romantically. You're going against nature my friend.
Yes. Frankly, she is low quality if she doesn't have that minimum standard. She's putting out for a guy that is too cheap to pick up a check?
That's a strawman argument. Paying is the bare minimum.
The best ideal is an iron clad pre-nup if you must marry or not to marry at all. I'm 37 and never have married. I'm not an extremely high earning man. I think there's some value in the approach of not marrying at all. It's the path I've chosen. While I won't rule out marriage in the future, it seems like an unlikely path for me.
The problem with women earning $100k+ is that a lot of them are careerist women who are typically not good girlfriends. A good girlfriend has a more feminine energy. Female lawyers, doctors, and business executives comprise a large portion of the $100k+ earning female population and these women don't have strong feminine energies.
You'd be surprised how little going dutch on the check has to do with whether you'll screw.
You give to a woman, or anyone for that matter, with no strings attached, that's what I mean by unconditional giving. If there are strings attached, no one will want your 'gifts'. The decision to give sure, conditional, but once you choose to give, it should not be coming from a place of 'now you owe me', that's more of a loan, and is rooted in lack.
I've closed plenty by paying half of what you would. It has absolutely zero significance when it comes to attraction, unless of course she's after your money. In fact going dutch takes all pressure off. No hidden expectations or implications for picking up the bill. Like I said, if it's a problem I expect her to voice her concern, and in hundreds if not thousands of dates that's happened once.
It has nothing to do with being cheap, and everything to do with removing all hidden expectations and distractions from genuine attraction. I use going dutch as a means to gauge attraction. If she decides she's not interested in me because she didn't want to pay for her drink or food on the first date then she has very low interest. You seem to do the opposite, to bank on her putting out because you got the bill.
That isn’t the point.
Taking a woman on a date is not a “gift.” It is the bare minimum. This forum has some broken guys that are too paranoid to show class and etiquette. Men lead. Men pay.
Closed low quality women. A woman who goes Dutch and also puts out is getting a bad deal.
It’s cheap and it’s low class. Just own it. You expect people in your orbit to pay their own way if you invite them. You are 100% wrong on this.
If $400k+ is the trigger point for a woman to desire an engineer, computer science or stem cell guy, then it's a bad deal. She can NEVER appreciate him and what it took for him to get to that dollar level. His communication is setup for being efficient and transferring and absorbing technical information.
The last part. Her fvcking due to status and wealth is very similar to paid for with a prostitute.
My time and attention are a gift. All you've convinced me of is how little you value your own.
I've been owning it this entire time. You wouldn't expect a friend to pay for your meal if they invited you out. An acquaintance or complete stranger are no different. Many women would feel uncomfortable with you picking up the tab, especially if aren't into you.
