China: No money, no honey

Do these ladies really think they are worth all that? I challenge women to back up the argument as to why men should break their backs to have sex with them? This conceited attitude of women is not going to hold water for long.

The answer is simple... do it back to them.

Have it so that the women who make more money are more eligible and the women who don't make money are less eligible.

It will set the bar for women so that they grow up expecting to retire on a man just because she feels entitled. The brilliant part is that not only does picking a woman with at least as much money as you have help you individually (think net money, you work hours, and undevastating alimony) but it also effectively limits women's hypergamy. No longer would women divorce men to move up because men wouldn't want to marry down.

@pacman that is completely true and they are easily wearing themselves out. They take it as a given that men want them more then the reverse... zzzz

I see this situation of girls going for the guys that have the most to offer, as nothing more than human nature. It's all about supply and demand and there is no way any one of us would act any differently if we had a choice between "good enough" and "superior" when it came to choosing an acceptable mate (or anything else in life).

I don't think the women's behavior is wrong or selfish nor does it have much to do with men's rights. The only way I link this story to men's rights is how screwed up things get when you value one gender over another. Remember it was because boys were valued over girls that started this whole offset of males to females ratio in China.

Nature gave men a higher need for sex compared to women. That is why males of all species have to do more for sex even when the ratio to males and females is balanced. If your upset about this, blame nature.

boys were valued over girls because the Chinese government limited families to one child per family.

as for the rich men, they'll just leave if we ask too much of them.

While to many of us men, it feels heartless and materialistic that so many women put money above all else, and they are even willing to admit it publicly, this is not so unusual if you take a cross-cultural perspective. It has a lot to do with supply and demand... simple economics (in this case a lot of men and few women).

See the link below for an erudite and insightful discussion of this dynamic. What men need to wake up to, is that they have much more power in this game than they realize. Women are just playing on men's higher sex drives to get what they want. When a man can take or leave sex with a woman, and he lets her know it, he gains a great deal of additional power in the relationship. This is an important part of "game" (PUA techniques). Even if a man is very interested in sex, he can act as though he doesn't give a damn. Those of us who have used this technique know how much it deeply upsets women, especially very beautiful women who base their power on their looks.

Older men particularly have a great deal of power over older women because: (1) so many other men of a comparable age are no longer able to have sex, (2) so many other men of the same age are totally turned off to women given the hefty alimony and child payments they had to make, not to mention acrimonious legal disputes with their ex-wives, and (3) so many men of the same age are seriously sick or dead. When older men, in America for example, wake up to the fact that the gender ratio is very imbalanced, and comparable to that of China, except of course the sexes are reversed, they can start to tighten the screws. For example, they can start demanding that women demonstrate that they have substantial assets before they will be considered serious romance material. Another example would be that the older men refuse to get married to a woman unless the woman signs a pre-marital agreement. Better yet, would be older men refusing to get married, but still demanding all the benefits of married life (live together, regular sex, etc.).

Why is it that women seem to have no reservations about taking advantage of the out-of-kilter gender ratio, but men can't bring themselves to do the same? Do men consider it in some way exploitative or immoral to take advantage of the situation? Perhaps it's time for men to get over it...

Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality
Roy F. Baumeister
Case Western Reserve University
Jean M. Twenge
San Diego State University

http://www.femininebeauty.info/suppression.pdf

> "Why is it that women seem to have no reservations about taking advantage of the out-of-kilter gender ratio, but men can't bring themselves to do the same? Do men consider it in some way exploitative or immoral to take advantage of the situation? Perhaps it's time for men to get over it... "

Are you effing kidding?

Just a few points....

Is it really immoral to take advantage of a situation when an imbalanced ratio gives the "buyer" a better deal? (I don't think so)

You have never seen men do this?

You think men are morally superior to women?

Men don't need to get over it because they have never been under it!!! But if you want me to play along. Sure. Okay. Let's tell men it is time to get over their moral superiority and they are now free to take advantage of imbalanced situations when it comes to sex and dating. Maybe we could start by informing 50 year old men that they should go to poor Asian countries and date and mate with young 20 year old girls. Cuz normally, according to your logic, it is immoral to take advantage of a situation that allows the buyer to get a better deal and men would never act in such a way. Good thing you are telling them to finally cut loose of their moral grip that was holding them back! Oh...wait... men are already going to Asia and doing this.

( just to be clear... I don't see anything immoral about getting the best deal, even when it comes to dating. .But if men or women are going to behave immorally, I don't think one gender is any worse or better than the other. Genders have different needs/wants so immoral behavior is displayed in different ways. )

BTW, the article mentions that 50% of Chinese woman checked "financial stability" as their number one trait they are looking for in mates. In the same survey, 54% of Chinese men's number one trait was "beauty" . Both men and women choose these traits over good morals and personality.

"I see this situation of girls going for the guys that have the most to offer, as nothing more than human nature."

Nature has nothing to with what's good and moral. What helps spread you genes is not necessarily in good character or IN ANY WAY MORAL! Rape, infanticide, and war may have evolutionary advantages but they aren't ok.

Men aren't women's working mules! And you should actually do some research on tribal societies to find out that women do actually provide and not just drain others.

"Nature gave men a higher need for sex compared to women. That is why males of all species have to do more for sex even when the ratio to males and females is balanced. If your upset about this, blame nature."

Omfg you are two faced and in the worst of places to advocate your own imperatives against men. Wasn't it you who just recently commented on an article about a third of young Japanese men not needing. Your response was to tell us all that sex was important and good for the relationship, as if there was something wring with those young Japanese men. NOW you say its to bad that us men want sex more and that us just a fact of nature and that women can take advantage of that.

You don't see men's sex as pro relationships you see it as pro power for women and you want to make us believe we are stuck with that.

Fuck that!!!

And here us where Kris was telling us to care more about sex Third of young Japanese men not interested in sex

Men have 10 times as much testosterone in their bodies than women do, at least when they are young. That means that men are a lot more interested in sex than women are. This is not a big secret. Women have used this differential to their advantage for centuries.

Now that we men can see how incredibly manipulated we are by women, and how much we give up in order to please women, and hopefully then get some sex, we can stop it. So it's time for men to stop giving away the store just to get some sex, it's time for men to see how they have been doing that in a big way. I mean no more marriage, no more unprotected sex that might lead to pregnancy, no more paying for dates, no more agreements to be monogamous when you don't feel like it, no more holidays with her parents when you don't feel like it, etc.

I say it's great that we have other options (ghosting, pornography, prostitution, celibacy, etc.) -- we don't need women to be sexually happy and satisfied. Not hyper-needing women is the beginning of men being significantly more empowered. Of course everyone needs some love in their life, but men don't have to get that love from materialistic and predatory women.

Read the academic paper mentioned above, it will blow your mind.

Gosh fondueguy, it would be best if I just ignored you, but others reading your comments about me might actually think there is truth to what you accuse me of.

Please work on your reading comprehension skills. You have correct quotes, but the other things you claim I have said or your interpretations are simply not true. Thank you for providing the link to my "Japanese men" comment so others can see how retarded your reading comprehension is. Perhaps you can provide links to my other comments that you refer to so people can see how badly you mis-interpreted them.

Here are my main points of most my artcles you refer to:

* There is nothing immoral about getting the best you can. Both men and women do this.

* Sex is part of a healthy relationship. There is nothing immoral or perverted about wanting sex

* I showed great concern about the situation in Japan that you refer to. I wanted to identify and fix the problem (the article was about 1/3 of Japanese men not interested in sex) If men don't want sex , that is fine, but if there is a problem such as chemical exposure, depression or social injustice that is causing it. I would like it fixed

I have never supported anyone treating anyone badly or exploiting anyone. Relationships should be give and take. But different people value different things. If everyone is getting what they want - I see no problem.

Just because something is part of human nature it doesn't mean it's good. There's no reason to dwell on the idea that these women are making individual choices to find a better mate as if it were the be-all end-all of the discussion. It's not. It's an is-ought problem. If someone does not understand this ethical consideration, we can talk about how women used to murder each other in Harems.

While women were probably always hypergamous, in past societies their behavior would have been checked by strict class structures and limited dating pools. In a small group of people, being able to compete for the most desirable woman in their group means that men have incentive to perform tasks that benefit the entire community. And even the most beautiful women would still have to pull their own weight in the end. That's what "natural" would be, if there is such a thing in the first place.

But those aren't the circumstances we have now. What we have is a society that pairs unprecedented social freedoms with a high degree of economic inequity. It means that for most men, the beautiful girl-next-door is forever out of reach... that means that whatever incentive they had to improve their communities and strengthen the social fabric will now go towards trying to get rich at all cost. And even then, hypergamous women can just keep aiming up, and up, and up, while men can only look down. It means that many men will spend the first 30+ years of their lives without the benefit of a stable relationship only for the "benefit" of settling down with a starry-eyed 20 year old or a mail-order bride. It means that the vast majority of men in our society will never be happy with their lives... they will never get to enjoy a relationship that's on equal terms with someone they would truly love if they ever had the choice. And chances are if women don't adjust their own behavior to better reciprocate men, they will always be in danger of losing their privileges.

"* Sex is part of a healthy relationship. There is nothing immoral or perverted about wanting sex"

No shit... but this is perverted.

"Nature gave men a higher need for sex compared to women. That is why males of all species have to do more for sex even when the ratio to males and females is balanced. If your upset about this, blame nature."

You also said sex is good for marriage (when the men cared less for sex of course) but your above statement says the exact opposite! The above is not about reciprocity but women getting an advantage out of sex.

"I have never supported anyone treating anyone badly or exploiting anyone. Relationships should be give and take. But different people value different things. If everyone is getting what they want -I see no problem."

Taking money and wealth from someone is taking advantage of them. I'm sure what most men want is not to have a girl take them for their money or retire on them.

Do you ever make your friend's pay for your time? Wouldn't That be obnoxious and immoral. Do you ever say to a friend you need me more so pay for my dinner... that's how stupid it is.

"Nature gave men a higher need for sex compared to women. That is why males of all species have to do more for sex even when the ratio to males and females is balanced. If your upset about this, blame nature."

The Japanese article actually disproves that assertion but wtf is your point anyways. If you didn't notice we men are trying to give each other useful advice so we aren't treated like ATMs in a relationship. And there are numberous ways of doing this.

So again, wtf is your purpose here?

I submit that Kris is just trying to distract us from some ideas that are potentially very liberating to men, but at the same time potentially very threatening to women (at least predatory and exploitative women). Ignore her. We need vote up and down buttons like they have over at www.the-spearhead.com. Did the moderators note this thread and our problem?

I am not going to keep answering, "What's your point?" after I label them as "my points" and place an asterisks next to them - so I will just ignore.

Men are free to refrain or indulge in any behavior they feel will liberate them - and I encourage them to do so . I have even pointed out that it is natural to engage in behavior that will benefit one's self. But I have a problem with people that are supportive of men doing what is best for them, but then turning around and criticizing women for doing the same.

In general and in most places I don't think men are harmed by hypergammy because just as many men participate in it (rich men with hot younger chicks). Which I assume is where most of you disagree with me - that's fine - I get that, and I'm moving on...

However, the hypergammy situation in China is extreme and is due to "unnatural forces" so to speak. I am referring to the value placed on baby boys (the one child rule). It is because of the aborting of female fetuses, abandoning and even infanticide of baby girls that brought the imbalanced ratio of males to females and is why I am refuting any claims that women are to blame for the mess in China.

I have concern for the men in China, but I don't believe the problem is from fault or immorality of women like some of you are making it out to be - it is because there are not enough women.... because they were killed before they were even born. I suggest this be a lesson to all people not to mess with the male-female ratio.

*****************************************

>> "Did the moderators note this thread and our problem?"

And what exactly is the problem ??? Your not capable of ignoring someone that has not cussed, shamed, threatened or broken any rules? If you guys don't want me to respond, then I suggest you don't ask me any questions or use my name in your comments.

In this thread, Kris says "Men are free to refrain or indulge in any behavior they feel will liberate them - and I encourage them to do so." This may be true, but I doubt it, because your posts do not line up with that intention.

You repeatedly take us off topic, and distract us from the main theme of this article. If you supported men and their efforts to emancipate themselves, then you would not bring up a variety of "women are victims" issues and also a variety of personal issues. For example, you talk about killing female babies, and how that is the cause of the Chinese gender ratio imbalance. Once again you have brought the conversation back to "women are victims." In case you haven't noticed, this web site is about men. Another example: you think we're in some way attacking you, but I don't believe we are. We are having a conversation about sociological, psychological, sexual, and cultural issues. We're trying to get you on board with the conversation, or else get you to leave. Please note: it's not about you.

Of course we are capable of ignoring off-topic and distracting comments. But the use of a vote-up or vote-down button facilitates this. The folks over at www.the-spearhead.com have technology that does this well, and I was suggesting that we use that technology on this site.

By the way, I am NOT requesting a response from you Kris, but you are of course free to respond, if you so desire.

Men are free to refrain or indulge in any behavior they feel will liberate them - and I encourage them to do so . I have even pointed out that it is natural to engage in behavior that will benefit one's self. But I have a problem with people that are supportive of men doing what is best for them, but then turning around and criticizing women for doing the same.

Kris, I agree with your comment here. Perhaps the most compelling things that drive me to the men's movement are the double standards and hypocrisy in society. However, 99% of the time the double standards go in one direction and are against men.

Personally, I can handle gender roles so long as the gender roles go both ways. I once was on a date with a woman from the Philippians who said that she liked the United States because women can be more independent. Of course, when the dinner check arrived she assumed that I would pay. It was our first and only date.

Also, I agree that men and women are free to seek mates using whatever criteria they prefer. There is no difference in women seeking men with money than there is in men seeking women who are pretty (incidentally, women are far more "stuck up" when it comes to a partners looks in the sense that very few women will be with a man who is shorter than them).

Someone once told me about a friend who would go to bars carrying a big wad of bills. Now, he would never actually spend much money on women but he made sure that they saw he had lots of cash. Apparently, this strategy worked quite well for him. He could pick up a woman in this way, have sex, and move on.

I believe men should be encouraged to understand and appropriately utilize the power that they have. As long as its legal. Women do this all the time. Men should too.

I try not to manipulate women who do not try to manipulate me. But when women start playing games with me, I play them right back. I'm 51 and my net worth officially classifies me as a multimillionaire. I have both experience and financial power. I see no reason why I shouldn't use this to my advantage when it is appropriate to do so.

"Perhaps the most compelling things that drive me to the men's movement are the double standards and hypocrisy in society. However, 99% of the time the double standards go in one direction and are against men."

Yes and the double standard her is that when men care less about sex its badddd for the relationship AND MUST BE FIXED but when men want sex more its the law if nature and women's advantage. Herp derp!!!

Does that kinda piss you off?

Anyways, the bigger problem I see is not about rich men marrying beautiful women but the idea that men need to make more money them women. The problem that men are expected to spend more in a relationship as if their times means less and as if men need women more. Its trully is bullshit. Honestly ask yourself if you think women actually need men less. Really, think long and hard on that.

Men have full control of this situation as all they have to do is start expecting women to make as much money as them and create a competition amongst women. (I suggest this because men aren't ATMs, limiting hypergamy, and women should work as much as men do).

If you really look back at history you'll find that men being the provider and men not expecting wealth gain from women is just not true. The situation is total changeable. We don't pay For friends so why the hell should we pay for a girlfriend... that's just messed up.

You should read this article at the Spearhead from W.F. Its really good!
Are Men Becoming “Gold Diggers,” Too?

I’d go one step farther, and say that it was the average guy’s dream prior to the growth of the middle class and the welfare state. In pre-20th century fiction, the theme of men pursuing wealthy women is so common that it’s almost cliché.

.. the dumb Cinderella stories only came more recently.

"Anyways, the bigger problem I see is not about rich men marrying beautiful women but the idea that men need to make more money them women. The problem that men are expected to spend more in a relationship as if their times means less and as if men need women more. Its trully is bullshit. Honestly ask yourself if you think women actually need men less. Really, think long and hard on that."

I have thought long and hard on that. And I agree.

Ironically, my experience is that women who define themselves as "traditional" are often the most equity-minded in relationships. They are the ones who are willing to make equal contributions, both financially and in other areas. I am still friends with an ex-girlfriend. When we were dating over 15 years ago (and even now), it was often a battle to see who *got* to pay. She was/is independent, very fair, and also very traditional and feminine. Conversely, the women to run away from at full speed are the ones who "talk the talk but don't walk the walk." They are the ones who talk about being independent but their actions indicate the exact opposite. They are the ones who place expectations on you, the man, that they are unwilling to place on themselves.

Men have the power to say no and I encourage them to do so. In fact, I believe young men should be encouraged not to marry until there are significant changes in the expectations placed upon them. At a minimum, young men should be taught about the risks and dangers of marriage.

I don't date much any more. The whole process is exhausting. I'm supposed to call her. I'm supposed to figure out what to do. I'm supposed to drive to her area. I'm supposed to pay. It's not worth it. I'm 51 and plan to early retire next year. I'm free to do pretty much whatever it is that I want in my life. Now, as a general rule I think women are pretty and I'm attracted to them, but I see no reason to be tied down by expectations that I need to financially support or "take care" of a woman.

The article fondueguy keeps critisizing me for says 1/3 of Japanese men (age 16 to 19) are not interested in sex. This can include masturbating, pornography, etc. It did not specify that they were just refraining from sexual intercourse. If they are simply refraining from intercourse, that is fine. but to not be interested in sex and to be such a deviation from the norm, it is cause for concern as it can be a symptom of serious health problems (or social problems) . I will say again how much I support the problem to be properly diagnosed and dealt with because I care about the health and social stability of men.

back to the Chinese article...

It would be nice if all males and females put personality and character traits above everything else. but both genders seem to put this aside when it comes to initial attraction. I disagree with the notion that females are more "stuck up" than men when it comes to looks. It does not match my reality of my own experiences or any studies on the subject. This very article we are posting under states that it is the men - not the woman - that place physical appearance above personality. (I see alot of hot women with Hugh Hefner but not any hot men with Betty White.) And I don't consider this a "problem".

In every ongoing relationship, there has to be what I will call "equal-value reciprocation", otherwise the relationship comes to an end. (A person feels they can do better or a person feels they are giving more than they are receiving). But I think it is narrow minded to believe that reciprocation can only involve paying for half the date or paying for half of living expenses, sharing chores, etc.

For example, I dated a very wealthy man for many years. He could care less if I paid my share of dinner or not, and he was a guy that can easily obtain sex from women. So in the relationship, we had to figure out what each of us values to be sure it was a meaningful and equitable relationship. Him paying for our dates, did not prove that he was choosing to be with me above other females, but what I did appreciate was that he was concerned about my well being and that he trusted me with personal and emotional information about himself and he spent time at my family gatherings and I reciprocated by doing the things that he valued in a partner (which was not paying for dates).

If a person values 50/50 financial contributions, 50/50 household chores, etc. that is fine, and they should look for a partner that values that as well. But there are many men (like my father) that despise house work and cooking, and does not want to spend money eating out. He values a woman "on call" for his personal needs (I am referring to all the things my mom does -reminding him of important appointments and names of business associates, delivering him his forgotten briefcase, having his suit ready in the morning, etc.). He runs a very successful business that my parents started together using my mother's money . There is no way in hell he wants her down at the office working with him on a regular basis!! On the other hand my parents raised four self-sufficient children with my mother almost exclusively in charge of the home front and discipline. (They have been happily married for 35 + years). What they have is an "equal-value" relationship and my father would think of what you guys value as a terrible deal for him.

In a post above I am asked if I ever make my friends pay for my time or dinner. This question is set up so poorly. First, there is no way I could possibly MAKE anyone do anything. But I had the reverse situation the other day when I had an hour or so to go out for the first time since having a baby. I called a friend last minute to meet me for drinks and salad. She is in college and her husband has been laid off from work. I paid the whole tab, and I doubt she will ever be able to reciprocate financially. To me, I got my fair value out of the situation, as I enjoyed her company and a chance to get out of my house for a bit. I can think of countless other similar situations.

Kris, your response is not compelling, but worth looking at carefully. Let's start with the last thing you said: that a friend would help out a friend in a difficult situation. Does that equate to the expectation that men always pay for women? How? Does it mean that women are naturally always in a difficult bind and need the man to pay for them as a matter of course, just as any friend would in exactly such a situation?

Far more interesting, though, is your view of your relationship with a rich man. On the one hand, you devalue the rich man's financial contribution as unimportant and meaningless, not as a sign of female privilege or anything else in any way noteworthy... and on the other hand, you hype up that he was emotionally needy and that you, having met his emotional needs, fully reciprocated him. You describe this exchange as "equal value reciprocation". I'm sure that if you had long soft hair and perky breasts you would have thrown that into the "exchange" as well. And that's precisely what women do, it's how they think of relationships that are fundamentally unequal: they tilt the scales. What does the following really sound like? "I'm not a gold digger because you can afford it." (That's a real quote from a woman I dated). Sounds like a rationalization, doesn't it? Such is the mind of a woman. Not only did you use your female privilege to have him pay, but you devalued it because he was rich. As for his emotional needs? Guess what, that's what a relationship is supposed to fulfill. You his, he yours. Chances are you were just as needy as he was and he dealt with your own little dramas, indecisions, insecurities, menstrual cycles, and everything else women always foist upon the men in their lives. He probably just never made it an issue to point that out to you, just as he never made it an issue that he was paying your way throughout the relationship.

Lastly, it's really silly to compare how the last generation did it versus how we do it. So your mom and dad grew up in a sexist society with sexist expectations placed upon women and they, as a couple, chose to maintain that set of values. Good for them, I'm glad that it's working out swimmingly. But what relevance does it have for us, the generation post female liberation? How does it help us decide where to go from here, based on where we are now? Let's be clear - if women are to be "equal" in anything more than a laughably absurd, highly privileged way - hypergamy has to go.

Kris, I have no particular disagreement with the concept of "equal-value reciprocation." I understand and accept what is meant by this. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am perfectly fine with gender roles, so long as these roles are equally applied.

But the fact is, the average woman does not show the slightest bit of interest in equal reciprocation. Women want it all, and they consider things like "he was able to enjoy my company" as reciprocation. It is not. Neither is "I gave him sex." If you read singles ads from women, you will see woman after woman with a laundry list of what she wants from men. Men, on the other hand, tend to describe what they can offer women. For example, women will say that they want ambitious men, whereas men will say that they are ambitious.

95% of women expect me to call, plan what to do, drive to their area, and pay. This is not equal reciprocation. What exactly are they doing for me? It's not like they are offering to come over to my house and clean my bathroom or wash my clothes (you know, those womanly things). And heaven forbid should I suggest that they do these things. That would be old fashioned and sexist. I am told that I should just be "satisfied with her company" when I am paying the check.

Maybe other men are satisfied with this one-sided arrangement, but I am not. I'm simply not interested in participating. Women are not worth it. (Yes, some women truly reciprocate. Bless them. But they are the exception, not the rule.)

As far as looks go, there was an article in The Economist several years ago that found 71 out of 73 women would not date a man who was shorter than them. Other studies have found similar results. If this isn't an obsession ("stuck up") with a man's looks, then I don't know what is. "Oh. But that's different. A woman insisting on a taller man doesn't count. That's perfectly normal. That's not the same as those superficial men who are attracted to a woman's looks."

Men have the power to withhold interest in women, and I encourage them to do so. Men, especially young men, need to be aware of the risks and one-sided nature of many if not most relationships.

> "Chances are you were just as needy as he was" Of course I was as needy as he was, I have never implied otherwise. In healthy relationships people need each other equally.

You are falsely assuming many things and you have missed my choice of words. Perhaps your assumptions are based on your own value system and you are unaccepting of people having different values.

As far as dating a wealthy man, you wrongly assume I "devalued" his financial contributions. This is not so, as I appreciated it very much. You also wrongly imply that he just put up with me not paying and just never said anything about it. I can assure you that he was very good at communicating what he wanted. If he wanted me to pay, he would have said so, or moved on to another girl.

My choice of words was that "HE could care less wether I paid or not." That implies that it is HIM that would devalue MY financial contributions. People tend to devalue what they do not need.

Even in my 'friend situation' you imply that one of us is helping the other out. Again you are assuming that one of us is more needy than the other. The way I see it is we had equal but different needs ...she has time, but no money, I have money but no time. It was a fair deal, not a favor.

As far as "equality"...

I don't believe men and women are "equal' (I know "equal" can be a tricky word). I believe we need each other equally and we deserve equal respect. But men and women are very different from each other. So sometime treating each other "equally" is not treating eachother "the same". This is hard for me to put into words, but here is a scenario to help.....

A man is a pastry chef. He works around baked goods all day; constantly smelling and tasting his sweet baked creations. For his girlfriends birthday he brings her a rich beautiful three layered cake that he has made. The girlfriend is appreciative of the cake as it is the best she has ever had.

They both want the relationship to be based on equal treatment. So when his birthday roles around she goes to his bakery (during his lunch break, so she will not be scene), and buys him the same cake that he brought her on her birthday. When he comes home that evening she surprises him with the birthday cake.

Do you think the man appreciated the "equal" treatment or do you think he would have appreciated something different for his birthday? Did the cake have the same value to him as it did to her? In this scenario I believe equal treatment would be different treatment. She should have purchased (or made) something that he would appreciate as equally as she appreciated the cake he made for her.

Sometimes romantic relationships are like this. Partners want equal reciprocation, but not necessarily be treated the same.

BTW- my husband points out that he is leery of women that give sex away too easily, and I agree with this.

I also can't help but notice that I am probably the only one at this site that has a healthy happy relationship....I'm just sayin'.....

I'm not going to lie. I didn't read all the above comments. I will return on another day to read them. My state on this right now is this: I am a young, 6'2", athletic young man, and intercourse would benefit me psychologically, emotionally, and physically. I'm working on getting a girlfriend, but I'm a PhD candidate - I'm going to be a doctor, but I'm poor. Now, I know that when I'm "financially stable," more women will be interested in me. However, when I'm financially stable, I will refuse to get married or reproduce, on grounds that my needs as a man went ignored for so long. Mainly, I study, workout, do martial arts, and think about how being a man is a curse. What are young men supposed to do in all this mess?

"Without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all the other goods." Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, VIII.1155a5.

It's like being trapped in the femi-sex terror structure of the university.

"Without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all the other goods." Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, VIII.1155a5.

I want you all to know that when my husband and I dated he never spent a lot of money as I knew he was on a budget. He lived on the other side of the mountain range and had to travel 2 hours to get to my house. I had two kids so going out would require me to get a sitter ($50 for the night). With that situation, we kept things simple.

I actually prefer low-key dates.

My best date today includes my husband going out in the morning with the boys and catching fresh fish; coming home and later in the day making a bon-fire in the backyard, crack open our favorite spirits and get a good buzz going. I cook BBQ dinner with the fresh fish. Kids roast marshmallows in the fire. Put kids to bed early and finish the night off with some smoke and sex. -the perfect date

That is my request for how we spend mother's day : )

@ cwondermagic1,

I am a female - so I can only give you the female perspective.

You're right to be concerned. I was once employed by the NBA, which allowed me to hang around (and even date) NBA players. I have seen the women that "hang out" with what they know to be successful men. They even try and "get in "at the ground level when Sports Illustrated announces the high school hopefuls. I also recently graduated from college so I am familiar with the social life.

I have also seen the weakness of the men even when they know the game and they have been warned over an over again about what not to do. Men are so weak when it comes to alcohol and the offer of "free sex"

Here is a bit of advice.....

alcohol mixed with women is not your friend. I never recommend sex with strangers. So if you are with mixed company - stay sober.

Watch women and ask yourself "what they are doing here" many women hang out in places that they know successful men or soon to be successful men hang out - so I am sorry to say - but skip the college bars and especially be leery of women that are at a college bars but are not enrolled at the school.

Look for women that are already at the places you frequent (and have a reason to be there) like the martial arts club, or taking similar classes at your college. They are most likely to have common interest with you.

Remember that past behavior is the best indication of future behavior. So if you start to talk to a woman ask her about her past.

Look at her friends. you know what they say... "birds of a feather...."

Remember people are at their worst during tough or stressful times. Believe me, you want to see her worst as that will be when her true character comes out.

I am sure the guys here will offer more advise...

Kris -

I submit that your experience with the rich boyfriend, who could "care less" about whether you paid your way, is very unusual, and irrelevant for most men. Good for you that you could attract a high roller. Perhaps he never spoke about it because he was simply following traditional gender expectations, and to bring it up would only risk an argument. I know, because women have often argued with me about this, and tried to shame me into submitting to their wills. I think it's a legitimate request -- to ask them to be equally responsible, but for many, particularly the very good looking ones, it's outrageous and unthinkable. I've gotten all sorts of manipulative remarks offered up to get me to pay for them, to support them in a style to which they aspire (and they know that I could do this).

Many women think that because I had sex with them I owe them. It blows my mind. Not only do I owe them money, but I owe them monogamy, and I owe them attention. It's outrageous how over the top their expectations are.

For all those men who have not yet read it, I strongly recommend Matthew Fitzgerald's book entitled Sexploitation. It's a classic, and the fact that it's out of print means that on Amazon.com, used copies are going for $89.95/copy - amazing. I'm sure you can find a less expensive copy elsewhere. It's 10 years old, but still full of great insights. Don't pay any attention to most of the low ratings -- they are from pissed off women who hate that this information is out there.

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Ploytation-Matthew-Fitzgerald/dp/0966963903/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1303186996&sr=8-3

"My choice of words was that "HE could care less wether I paid or not." That implies that it is HIM that would devalue MY financial contributions. People tend to devalue what they do not need."

You see, this is why women just don't get it. You can't devalue a contribution that isn't there. Women make all kinds of excuses for why the money didn't matter and it's always that he had so much, that he didn't care, it wasn't important... but other than that the relationship was strictly egalitarian. Yeah, right! For comparison, see what happens to the rich guy who insists that his lady pays her own way. I've seen what happens many times where it not only creates an outraged girlfriend but also 10 of her female friends. And it doesn't always have to take a rich guy for them to expect him to act like one. When it comes to money, it's always "Aw, but honey can't you buy me a puppy? And I never want it to grow old!" while pretending that the finances aren't even part of the equation. Women use so many manipulative tactics in this arena that it blows my mind.

But since you're a woman, you're completely desensitized to this. It never occurs to you that the typical scenario for any relationship involves a flow of money from the male to the female. You haven't given it much thought that 75% of divorces are initiated by women and the #1 reason for doing so is a change of financial status of the man. You haven't thought about the implications of the multi-billion dollar engagement ring industry. The only thing you can think of is that when you yourself dated a rich man, he didn't seem to worry about money. So it's all good, right?

This isn't to say that you were a "gold digger", since the standards we have for that pretty much mean you'd have to be Anna Nicole Smith. This is merely to say that women find countless reasons to date men who are "out of their league" and expect to be treated as equals who share in everything that he has to offer, but had the tables been turned, the vast majority of these women would never consider a lower status guy. They would rather sit around and complain about where all the good men have gone and take it as a given that lower status men are simply unacceptable, while the higher status ones bitch about how men are "intimidated" by their success.

Your cake example is very pedantic. In real life, the woman would have let the guy eat his cake off her ass and called it even. Or she would have bought him a tie.

At least you are not repeating the opinion from posts above that suggest the rich man is too oppressed to tell the girl how he "really feels" or he is a victim of gender roles, because that line of thinking is straight out of the feminist handbook. You want to take a perfectly happy content person who is free to leave and has other choices and make them out to have such low self awareness that they just don't know what is best for them. Kind of like the feminist rescuing the stay at home moms.

I understand that most men, including my husband, value a woman that contributes financially. I am pointing out that not everyone's relationship is based on the same values, and I find it arrogant of you to think that everyone wants the same things you want (50/50 financial contribution) other wise you imply they are some sort of victim unable to express themselves.

> "see what happens to the rich guy who insists that his lady pays her own way"

I suppose the girl would have to leave because most the time she would not be able to afford the activity that the man is suggesting, or she might find another man (You may not realize this, but men are competing and are just as responsible for setting the bar)

If you say a rich man secretly would like her to contribute financially why does he take her to places she could never afford?.

Also, I completely understand that when dating, money (or effort) typically travels from male to female. It has been this way since the beginning of time. Think of why that is. I don't have time for a complete biology lesson but here are some things to think about all related to this subject, perhaps you can connect the dots.

*survival of the human species
*hypergamy
*biological force: men have higher sex drive.
*biology: Women only have only two things to offer for species survival: sex and babies (some might say we just have sex and babies are a bi-product)
*sexual motivation (men competing for women - this leads to progress)
* prostitution (I am throwing this in because it is the most basic male-female transaction)

Since nature only gave women two things to offer society and men have countless things to offer, in order to need each other "equally" men have a higher sex drive. This ensures procreation and survival of our species.

Natural social conditions should be in place so things don't get out of whack. As nature intends for things to be ballanced.

If a man is not interested in having children and/or his sex drive is declining (aging) he has less value for women.

Some of you make it sound that there is no biology at all going on and if you could just talk some sense into women they would hand sex over for free. There would no longer be a need to pay prostitutes. Just get them to realize that sex is a mutual 50/50 activity so really no need for men to pay. Good luck with that.

Kris, you use personal anecdotes to try to refute the observations made about women in general and then accuse everyone who responds to you that they don't know the whole story. Just don't take it personally when you end up getting skewered - stop using personal anecdotes as if it actually disproves what everybody else is saying about their experience with women. Then we'll all get along.

You said: "or she might find another man"

You just don't get it, as glaringly obvious at it is. You hit the nail on the head here, but completely missed the point. Women value money and if the man doesn't comply, they won't be faithful.

"If you say a rich man secretly would like her to contribute financially why does he take her to places she could never afford?."

Answer: "or she might find another man"

"Natural social conditions should be in place so things don't get out of whack. As nature intends for things to be ballanced."

This could be taken to mean anything. It seems perfectly natural to me for men to marry off or sell their daughters as a means of expanding their personal wealth. Oh that's right - slavery still happens today and families still sell their daughters for cash. It's perfectly natural for women to be oppressed as second class citizens, for powerful men to acquire multiple wives, and for conquering hordes to rape their way through enemy territory. And definitely, don't let any woman go to work - for pay, anyway - since it might give her an unfair advantage over men.

Given the brutal history of our species, it would seem to me that hypergamy is a compensation mechanism. If there were no laws or police, the best possible choice is for women to flock to the wealthiest and most brutally powerful and territorial man. I would say that it compensates for some of the same things that we have created laws and police to deal with. And I would say that hypergamy is working out for us the same exact way that our love for sugar is making everyone fat as hell.

It seems to me that you're just unwilling to accept the notion that women might actually have to adjust their behavior in order for society to improve. Impossible that how women behave could be in anyway wrong, you know, the way it would be wrong if a guy dragged her by her hair into a cave and raped her. Because for women, their behavior is biological, so we have to just accept it as-is.

It is interesting to look at the Human Sex Ratio page on Wikipedia. It for example shows that China is distinctly different from the rest of the world for the youngest population. In this young age range, China stands out as having considerably more men than women, and it is worse there than in any other country. This no doubt is why things have gotten so badly out of kilter, as this article indicates.

At the same time, if you look at the over 65 age range, Russia and the USA have considerably more women. What men in the USA and Russia don't understand is that they are have a significant bargaining advantage with women, thanks to these ratios. Many men in these countries are still thinking that the ratios were the way when they were younger. It's time that older men in the USA and Russia woke up to the fact that they have a lot more bargaining power than they have thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio

Dungone- I didn't miss the point of my own post. You just repeated it. Perhaps that's one thing we agree on: women value men that have the most to offer, in today's society that is usually represented by money. I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand that men play a biological role in this as well. In any transaction the "buyer" and "seller" both play a role in setting the price. It cannot be one sided. Perhaps you and I have a different opinion of morality as I find nothing immoral about this and I believe it to be essential to survival of our species.

I have never seen any evidence that either gender is morally superior when it comes to sex and dating.

It was the post way above about how men would never take advantage of a gender imbalance because they have superior morals compared to women when it comes to dating, that got my attention and why I shot back. Now look - you have redwoodtwitter commenting about a gender imbalance in other countries that will give men more bargaining power. (nothing wrong with getting the best deal for men or women, it is just so contrary to what was said ealier)

Anyway, you must see all the immorality of a girl accepting a dinner date from a guy that offers. I don't see it. I does not appear that we are going to change eachother's minds.

Kris, it's crystal clear that there's not a single thing about women's behavior that you would be willing to change in order to create a happier or more equal society. In which case, I have to ask you, why would any man in his right mind EVER support equality for women? Seems like a lousy deal to me. Using your logic, I can't seem to find anything wrong or immoral about rape, either... In fact your response is so shoddy that it can be used to justify anything at all.

I agree with Kris, that both men and women get the best deal that they can get, given all their personal baggage (perhaps that they are not good enough for a certain type of woman, personal aversion to women with blond hair, whatever their "stuff" may be). The Chinese situation reveals that there are many fewer women of a certain age than there are men of that same age. Thus the women set the bar very high, specifically they require that their man have a house (as an indicator for a lot of money). That's fine, I don't see anything immoral about it. It's just the marketplace working out supply and demand. What I was saying above was that women are actually more tuned into the supply and demand situation, and men are more old-fashioned, and driven by concepts like honor, chivalry, gender expectations, and the like. It's time for men to give up all the latter concepts and go for what they can get.

redwoodwriter, the situation in China is far more complex than just the balance of numbers on either side. First and foremost, they have a culture where parents often see their children as a source of income and where women aren't expected to be independently successful. Ironically, many Chinese parents are finding that their children are abandoning them. The knife cuts both ways. Second, they are experiencing rapid, uncontrolled urbanization. The people who moved to the cities a decade or two ago are not only far more wealthy than the people leaving their villages now, but in many cases they're making it more difficult for everyone else. Did you notice how the article mentioned 64 million empty apartments? 64 million! That's like like having 4 or 5 cities the size of New York City sit completely empty, waiting to be flipped by their wealthy owners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_property_bubble They're in a dangerous bubble and eventually it's going to crash hard. Chances are it's going to take down a lot of home owners and their shallow, materialistic marriages down with them. Notice the mentality evident even in this article: they believe the housing values are just going to keep going up and up, so much so that it's affecting their mating choices. That is one extreme society! Their culture just isn't keeping up with the times.

Contrary to what Kris says about it being "natural", American women's drive to find financial success in mating is also rooted in a culture that's way too slow to change. Ultimately, it feels like a society where men have paved the way for women to be their equals and changed an incredible number of things about what it means to be a man, but women haven't changed at all. They took the washing machines, dishwashers, birth control pills, family law, and white collar jobs that our society has provided them with and they said thank you very much, is that all you've got? It's time for women to start changing with the times.

There are many instances throughout history where women were in an extreme minority yet still did not have the leverage that they've managed to achieve now. In the past, especially during the period of colonization and westward expansion, the only way women could take advantage of the numbers game was through prostitution or other "women's work" such as mending clothes. Even then, marriage was used to preserve social status or augment it for men, not for women. The whole damn point of women's liberation was to move away from that and create an equal society.

Interesting comment Dongone (immediately above)... I hadn't appreciated the extent of the bubble economy in China. So having a house in China really isn't that good a long term bet -- because the housing bubble is probably going to burst soon.

I believe throughout the world Feminism has created a very out-of-whack situation in terms of what women get from heterosexual relationship and what men get out of the same type of relationship. You might want to write an article about economic bubbles, and how bubbles explode, and how all that might be relevant to Feminism.

For example, the phone phenomenon of Game is a bubble-popping factor so far as I'm concerned. Men are wising-up, and figuring out that they don't have to commit to women, and don't have to comply with women's demands. Men are discovering that they can seduce a whole bunch of women, and walk away from them without serious after-effects (of course, mind your birth control and watch out for STDs). Without commitment, such as marriage (as in this article about China), women lose a great deal of their leverage.

I've been putting alot of thought into this. I was just in Equity and Social Justice and Advanced Topics in Equity and Social Justice (which I got an A and A+ in - they were PhD level courses). Once I'm done this degree and get a good job, with the first money I get, I'm going to get a lawyer and sue the schools and university system where I'm from for subjecting young men to sexual terrorism and creating anti-male, anti-man curriuculm that descrimintates against men. Something I read on this webpage really drove the point home - feminist sexually bully young men, and underage men get terrorized, man-handled by women, and forced to sign comprimising documents. Men in Canada are subjected to sexual terrorism, taught they are potential rapists, child-molesters, pedophiles and perverts from the time they are just little boys. I'm going to sue the professors in the class (a Muslism second wave feminist women - I know more about feminism than her - and a homo-sexual man from Australia), for creating an anti-male, anti-man curriculum, and for colonizing young men with feminist ideological dogma.

Also, I was watching the "Royal Wedding" the other day, and that fat woman from the Royal Canadian Air Farce put on here hat and said "in Canada, this is a terror hate, or a whore hat." I was so deeply, deeply hurt by her words that I unplugged my television and pushed it against the wall. I can't even watch televison, because the display of female sexual superiority makes me feel physically sick.

And finally, pedagogically, they teach boys in school to be caring and kind, and be fathers and husbands, and then when the boys get ejected into the workforce, they find that no woman is going to marry them (maybe a woman who has five different children with five different men, or who has had sex hundreds of times, or something) if they don't have a good job, and they have the anti-man sexual-terror zone of the colleges and universities to contend with before they ever get there. This is an act of inhuman psychological violence against men.

I'm a smart man - no woman is ever going to catch me in her sex terror trap. I hope some misguided young feminist tries to take me to court. I think at the end of this I can win a considerable settlement from the courts and schools.

Last thought - what they subject boys in school and universities too is similair in many ways to the psychological torture techniques that get used to immasculate and psychologically torture men in military jails.

C.

"Without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all the other goods." Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, VIII.1155a5.