teacha said:
The ONLY reason she asked for him to open her door was just to see if he would compromise his principles for her.
Which is what a sh!t test is. But you don't fail a sh!t test by answering yes or no... you fail it by taking it serious! Which is what the OP did.
If you must take it serious (and this is not a situation where you must) - it can only be done with a call on bullsh!t; which the OP attempted to do; but failed the minute he went back to the car after acting like he was leaving.
teacha said:
She only did it because he said he doesn't open doors for women.
She had no idea he was going to say "Now that you said it, no." Which as far as im concerned is where the main sh!t test was.... Everything after that was a bi-product of him taking her (and himself) too serious.
teacha said:
If she really liked him she could have just let it go and respected his views but NO, she had to pull up that my way or the highway stunt just to see how badly he wanted to get some.
Yes, childish of her; i don't disagree.
teacha said:
if a woman really likes you, she will work with you. This wasn't a shit-test but a fvcked up POWER-MOVE on her part.
The original question she asked him was a sh!t test. Pure and simple.
Everything after that was childish manipulation attempts on both of their parts. It ultimately became a power struggle on both of their parts.... And a train wreck...
And in my experience - women do work for you once they become wrapped up in you. But that normally happens after the sex, after you've established a connection, and after you've proven you're a strong enough man to not take her sh!t serious. Spitting in her face is not going to get you any close to any of those unless she's some low quality woman who likes men who are mean to her.
teacha said:
You guys see failure, i see a man who would not compromise his principles just to get laid.
His behavior wasn't about not compromising principles. It was about winning! It was about dominance and drinking too much of the alpha kool-aid. There's no other reason to answer the question in the astoundingly arrogant way he did....
teacha said:
Sure, he could have gone the c&f way and opened her door just to get his dvck wet but at what cost? losing his integrity? compromising his ethics?
You also can't get your d!ck wet by saying a$$hole stuff to a woman and expecting her not to act up. He was prepared just fine to say, "now that you asked, no". But was not prepared to deal with the drama she brought to him as a result of that sentence. This is due to an incongruence in him. This incongruence is caused when he
tries to do things instead of just doing them... He tried to be dominant; he tried to act like an a$$hole motherfvcker! But when it came time to REALLY show her that he was who he was acting like he was - he folded into a 2 year old tantrum. He responded to her childish behavior with his own....
A man who says, "now that you asked, no!." is a man who gets power off of dominating women into submission. A man who made a comment like that is someone who would rip a woman out of his car for not getting out of it! When the OP doesn't do that - the woman see's clearly that she's playing with a man who's playing games with her games. So the whole focus turns from having a good time to some idiotic power struggle over a d@mn door!
teacha said:
She should have just respected his views towards chilvary and just let the sleepings dogs lie. Like Pook said, RESPECT IS ALL.
You can't be disrespectful, and play these child-play kids games, and expect a woman to melt for you....
You expect respect to be a one way street? That the man should only care that the woman respects him and not if he respects the woman?
Her question was a stupidly innocent unplanned sh!t test; that came as a result of seeing something she viewed as romantic....
He pissed on her when she wasn't even on fire...