1. You score when you do what you say your going to do for me or others, call, show up, clean up, fix, write, whatever. You loose me when you don’t, especially when you don’t acknowledge that you broke a promise
2. Almost nothing attracts me more than your acts of compassion for others. If you are good to others, your staff, co-workers, strangers, old people, children, your mother, I am assured that that you will be kind to me
3. Smart is sexy too. Compassionate and smart is unbeatable.
4. I am beautiful for my age by societal standards, but I worry that you will reject me in time for normal aging process, I can’t control.
5. When you eat from my plate, I know you are comfortable with me.
6. If I touch your hands or arms, I am telling you I am attracted to you
7. The best date would be a walk in beautiful place, a garden maybe or along a shore, coffee or a glass of wine afterward. I wish someone would ask me.
8. You need educating about handling my breasts, ouch - please be more gentle.
9. I love your stories and the sound of your voice.
10. Users leave all the planning, cleaning and making up to you.

The vitriol worsens when one such as myself points out his behavior. should be
The vitriol worsens when one such as myself points out this behavior.

I couldn’t agree more with your sentiments. I can only speak for myself when I state that I do not want to prove that women suck. Clearly, not all do. I do endeavor to point out the contexts within which many men make their dating choices, not all of them flattering to many women.

Further, I take great pains not to attack someone (ie. - calling them ‘bitchy’ ‘crybaby’ ‘arbitrary’ ‘you must be bitter…’ etc..) for what they write. I do, however, point out inconsistencies, factual and logical omissions, and disingenuous arguments and argument methods. An example of this is my post above. Collins posted regarding women expecting men to pay for women in date in this age of equality of opportunity and earnings. Wil all due respect to M, her response was “Don’t be a cheap crybaby, pay for it.” (That is my paraphrase. Take issue if you wish).

Notice I did not call M some “entitled” bitch. Notice I did not call her a gold digger. I did point out that by calling men (who don’t pay) cheap crybabies, she does not respond to Collins’ valid point about equality, which I added to…

I will say I’ve found that, if you even remove my posts from consideration, a curious lack of genuine response from many (not all) female posters to the thoughtful posts made by men here (Lyall Taylor, Hadley, hunter come to mind). The usual tactic is to ignore their posts and to attack them personally as ‘unreasonable’ ‘cheap’ ‘crybabies’ “immature ‘emotionally unavailable’ or other similar put-down. I agree this does not further respectful discussion. The vitriol worsens when one such as myself points out his behavior. Curious, isn’t it?

I know my posts may be a bit wordy (verbosity - duh!), but I do strive for clarity in what I write so that readers do not misunderstand where I am coming from. I do think the main point of blogs like this is to foster open communication between the sexes so that each may see the other’s point. What I do find is is a shocking unwillingness to see, let alone acknowledge and understand, the points of view than most men make (even exclude me from that). I see a similarly shocking willingness to attack men for making their points, not the points themselves. I’d like to understand some more of the ladies’ point of view. By the same token, they have to also see, let alone understand some of men’s point of view. Communication is a 2 way street, no?

I am disheartened by so many others who cannot have a discussion without personalizing it and slinging personal insults at the other. I will say a hearty ‘Thank You!’ to Tia Maria for her post, and hope for more from her.

By the way, Evan’s #4 - “You do look good without makeup, just not as good as you look with it.” Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I like the ones who look better without it (makeup, that is)! They are out there!

She wrote, “It doesn’t have to be the $150 (or whatever it was) that the “You ate the food, you drank the wine, now do the right thing” guy spent on his date.” It appears she intimates that men expect the ‘right thing’ from women when men pay for the date. I personally do not know what the ‘right thing’ is, but if it is sex, this simply is inaccurate and unreasonably extreme.

M conveniently ignores another thing when she wrote, “But if you feel the date must involve money? Then if you’re a man, PLEASE PAY FOR THE DATE.” - What if SHE feels the date involve money? Should she not pay for it then? Or is he to ’suck it up’ and still pay? Curiously inequitable.

I would disagree with her characterization it’s about a guy demonstrating his protective instinct for a woman. How on earth does paying for a woman on a date relate to protecting her? Protect her from the big, bad bill? I submit that walking her to her car (assuming separate transport modes), walking on the streetside, are far better examples of demonstrating protective instinct.

Besides, if we are going to call people names in the dating arena, if one calls men ‘cheapskates’ for pointing out these inequities, one can equally call women ‘lazy leeches’ for the same behavior. Not exactly positive discourse, is it?

I also do not know what list M read, but I do not see anything resembling men WANTING women demonstrate their nurturing instinct by cooking for them. A lawyer would object to this as an example of ‘facts not in evidence.’ Evan’s list did not include that assertion at all. Respectfully, I do not see where cooking for someone (if that is what M means by demonstrating nurturing instinct) equates demonstrating nurturing any more than paying for someone demonstrating a protecting instinct.

I would like to also note that no one but M brought up ERA. She’s right in that it was not ratified as a constitutional amendment. So what? Women have the same rights and privileges as men, and are usually paid more for the same work, particularly in metropolitan areas. (Reuters, Aug 2007). She ignores these facts.

I would also like to point out the logical inconsistency and very inequitable view in the following comment by M - “Also, if she’s a generous woman, she’ll pick up something along the way anyway — especially if you’re dropping a lot of dough. If we’re eating @ Babbo and I don’t get a round at the Bubble Lounge, or one of the cabs, then I’m just using you.” So she is ‘generous’ for picking something up along the way, especially if he spends lots of money. How magnanimous. He spends $100 and she spends $1 (proportionally speaking), and she’s generous? This paradigm is ridiculous, particularly in light of equal earning power.

She also wrote, “And if you’re letting me do that (not pay for anything - my paraphrase) because I’m a cute little blond size 0 and you ditched the nice size 8 brunette just for bragging rights? YOU’RE the sucker.” Big assumption, here. Also, it conveniently places 100% blame on the guy. He’s damned if he pays 100% under this scenario, damned if he doesn’t, according to M, because he’s ‘cheap.’ Talk about a no-win scenario for a guy.

She further wrote, “And the equal rights thing? 1) If you’re dating to find your significant other and eventually have kids, do you really want the household to survive on one income? 2) If you’ve got it like that that in 2008 the household COULD survive on one income, and you don’t want to pay for one date? You’re CHEAP. Hideously unattractive trait.”

M mentions children as an additional option. This issue touches on other threads, but since she brought it up, I’ll comment further. This is another reason women seek men who pay for everything - their options (have kids, not have kids, stay home, pursue additional education, etc.) Many men feel women ignore this fundamental imbalance - that women, no matter what they earn, see having these options as their right (via men who earn more), but that men have no such option….it is simply their job to earn. Not very equitable, is it?

It’s funny how women who don’t want to pay for anything have the temerity to call men that do cheap.

She further wrote, “Pay for the date. Don’t whine about it. Nothing is less attractive.” Her comment (and others in the post) employ shaming tactics, emotional devices meant to play on a man’s insecurities and shut down debate. Her tactic is simply to demonize men (”Don’t whine” “cheap”) who ask hard questions which is basically an ad homimem attacks. It also argues nothing logically. In doing so she ignores, Collins’ point and the inequality that exists in the dating arena, telling men to shut up and just play by these rules that favor women.

Analytically speaking, if a man is looking at a woman as a potential wife down the road, it makes sense to evaluate a woman’s traits as well. Part of that evaluation should, and would include whether she possesses selfish traits. I would submit that the more she expects by way of his wallet (particularly so if her earnings are equal to or more than his), the more selfish she is, thus making her a less desirable marriage candidate. Something to consider.

And I could not agree more with Evan regarding the shoe fetish….

It doesn’t have to be the $150 (or whatever it was) that the “You ate the food, you drank the wine, now do the right thing” guy spent on his date.

It can be FREE if it’s imaginative.

But if you feel the date must involve money? Then if you’re a man, PLEASE PAY FOR THE DATE.

It’s not really about the money at all (unless you’re a cheapskate who also has no imagination, in which case you probably don’t date much anyway). It’s about a guy demonstrating his protective instinct for the woman.

(After all — and it’s in the list — you want us to demonstrate our nurturing instinct, ERA (which I’ll note has yet to be ratified) be damned, by cooking for you, right? And trust me, that one’s much more of a logistical pain in the butt. Especially at the end of the day when we’ve worked as long in the office as you.)

Also, if she’s a generous woman, she’ll pick up something along the way anyway — especially if you’re dropping a lot of dough. If we’re eating @ Babbo and I don’t get a round at the Bubble Lounge, or one of the cabs, then I’m just using you.

And if you’re letting me do that because I’m a cute little blond size 0 and you ditched the nice size 8 brunette just for bragging rights? YOU’RE the sucker.

And the equal rights thing?
1) If you’re dating to find your significant other and eventually have kids, do you really want the household to survive on one income?
2) If you’ve got it like that that in 2008 the household COULD survive on one income, and you don’t want to pay for one date? You’re CHEAP. Hideously unattractive trait.

Pay for the date. Don’t whine about it. Nothing is less attractive.

“Of course you can talk about your feelings, I just don’t want to hear it”
Men are annoyed when you go on and on about “how I feel”, for them it is like a foreign language, one they have never heard!
I did it with my current boyfriend, and he was kind enough to tell me I was annoying him with it…of course, being a woman I couldn’t keep my mouth shut for too long…and one day it dawned on me!! There are ways to talk about your feelings and be heard!
Just go to the point, tell him what bothers you, and zip it!