The problem isn't one $60 dinner. The problem is a collection of failed dates. A few failed $60-$100 dates a month can affect men's wallets. I can understand why some men want to avoid costly dinner dates.
That the cost of dating.
No, but some men are still dense enough not to understand that the whole issue of who pays is not about money but about frame control. The same idiots who are foaming at the mouth about chivalry and being a gentleman and all that BS are often the ones whining the loudest about the dating game being biased in favour of women. Well, duh. If you have to pay for the privilege of her company, don't be surprised if your value is lower by default.
We all pay for the woman’s time. You pay using money or your own time, which is even more expensive than the money. That’s how the dating game works. Women extract resources and time from men in exchange for sexual access.
They already do to begin with thanks to a little thing called civilization. The idea is to limit anything extra on top of that.
Never try to read a woman's mind. It is a scary place. Ignore her confusing signals and mixed messages. Assume she is interested in you and act accordingly.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
Incorrect. What you are proposing is contributing both, your money and your time, whereby a woman only contributes time.
You have a point here, as I’ve never been one to fvck around on the phone longer than 5-10 minutes with a broad. Some guys think enough chatting will get them in the pants for less money. To me that is a huge waste of time.
Why would you pay for food with a woman who took a month to see you again?
Not the greatest grounds for a dinner date BTW....
that's a good point you make. for me, it's more like not worrying about it. I don't think, darn I am getting a bad deal if a buy dinner. At the same time, I don't use it as a bribe.
doesn't work these days; women can't find their father so no one to contribute. albeit in the past I found womens fathers very much wanting to help and provide.
Yeah but his wife was of the same social status. She wasn't some peasant woman marrying up - she also came from an aristocratic family. If this was a peasant marriage, the husband may not have gotten land but he would get a cow or two and perhaps a few goats. Things still largely work this way in some places (i.e Afghanistan). The concept of men "buying" sexual access with financial resources is not a natural one.
Wouldn't it only matter if the female sees it as a bribe? Then, all of a sudden, you're lower value regardless of your motivations. Thus risking time/money on many "one date, no sex, no second dates."
That's why so many men can get upset, we have all been on dates where we thought she was interested, paid for dinner and drinks, or maybe a movie and were blown off days later. If I invite a woman out for dinner or drinks, I am going to pay the tab, at least the first few times anyways. So if it is someone I just met, I will just say meet me for a drink, if she shows and it goes well, ok maybe dinner at a good place I know that is priced reasonably.
maybe; you could be right. I spend less and less time worrying about what women think. seriously I just see what they do and if I like that it's all good. the mind they have is really like spaghetti. even my way doesn't work all the time because they will do one thing and then something else the next time.
