The only baggage I’m leaving left in the divorce (not her, just the negative stuff). That’s why I’m divorced. This is my second so it’s not like I don’t have experience. Neither affected me adversely. It’s like I stuck it out for as long as I could and once I made up my mind to leave I left it all behind. Like a weight being lifted off my shoulders. Some initial guilt after the first one (Oh my god, I’m a failure!). This time is was just getting used to living alone and getting to know myself again.
***Originally posted by Contrary: *
/lurking again **
Teaser! Oh well… Thanks for the compliment back there. 
Originally posted by Artemius:
Annaplurabelle, I’m not sure what you are driving at regarding condoms and pregnant males. Surely you know you are preaching to the choir.
The condom comment wasn’t directed at you personally (ie good luck ladies??) - or to anyone in particular - both remarks were in hypothetical situations, meant to illustrate inherent sexual/gender inequality. That’s what I was driving at.
Women want equality, equal pay, equal respect, want to fly combat aircraft, fight on front lines, do and have all the things men have and do. If they want equality they can’t expect to have it both ways.
Maybe you don’t want to admit men have a valid point here.
Can you explain that?
First of all, aren’t you preaching to the choir with this one? Not one woman on this thread has said she wouldn’t expect to share dating expenses in some form or another.
In any case: What does any of this have to do with personal relationships or individual behaviour?
Let’s assume some women don’t want to fly combat aircraft, fight on the front lines, or do what men do, etc. Can they apply to the gov’t for a dating expense exemption? If the two concepts are related, as you’re asserting, that isn’t so far fetched, is it? But seriously:
What if some women don’t pay because they’re cheapskates? Aren’t some men cheapskates? What if they’re just out for what they can get. Aren’t there men like that? What if they want a traditional-role relationship? Some men want that too.
And plenty of men expect to have it both ways (as in double standard, for one) - and I don’t see anyone suggesting we lower their pay, stop them from flying planes, take what they have, etc. until they shape up.
I guess that means equal opportunities protected by law aren’t contingent on individual attitudes or behaviour, huh?
Look at your own expectation: "I only date good girls (he, he), preferably Catholic with all that repressed guilt (he, he)."
Guilty Good Girls (he he, right?) who turn into Modern Women when the check arrives. That’s not wanting it both ways?
Maybe you don’t want to admit men have a valid point here.
Could it be that they don’t have a valid point when they trot out that meme? It implies holding women to a higher standard than men - that women need to earn equality by being perfect or at least, more perfect than men with the same rights.
Kind of patronising, isn’t it?
You aren’t implying selective equality, are you, when it suits you?
“Absolute equality is, of course, impossible.”
- William O. Douglas (US Supreme Court)
If I woke up and discovered I was now a woman…
I’d also like to reiterate that if I were a woman it would make a hell of a lot more sense to pay my own way.
When that day dawns, we’ll talk again, okay? A woman could just as easily rebut with: “If I were a man…”. And even if it did happen, it would just be one individual’s opinion/preference. Just like it is now.
This paying thing is really not a major issue for me {sorry Mipiace, Audrey, Anna} But the more I hear from the women here like Audrey, et al, the more it appears there is an interesting/curious reluctance to concede this point.
Huh? Cite the post where a woman says men should pay for everything. I believe the only posts that allude to that are from men.
Also, if I decide to date the check-out clerk a the local supermarket then it’s obvious I’ll be paying and I’ve no problem with that but this is not what I’m referring to and all of you know it.
How would we know that? Women who “love” being called girls don’t bring to mind high caliber professionals, and you never specified anything other than “gainfully employed”. That could be low wage, couldn’t it? Do you adjust for any income disparity, or just extreme differences?
IMO, I think girls see me as a single doc ($$$)
You mean as opposed to seeing you as, say, a married bus driver?
You are a single doctor.
And I still think the $$$ is your issue, for the most part. We’re talking about dating, right? Believe it or not, men who earn considerably less than you are capable of spending just as much on dates. Or more. To wit: If you think it’s reasonable that the women you’re dating split expenses, then the actual money spent must be a reasonable sum, right? I mean, I assume we’re not talking about flying to Paris for the weekend, limo rides to Vegas, expensive baubles as gifts, etc. So why should dating you be any more enticing strictly for financial reasons?
Obviously, we’re focusing on you in regards to the who pays issue - you’re the OP, aren’t you? We can’t address comments to the women you’ve dated, can we? It was your choice to discuss it, and your choice to post personal information about yourself. I don’t understand why you’re suddenly so defensive about personal comments and/or differing opinions. Aren’t you the guy who said:
"I can take it." ???
I don’t think I ever projected a confusing message regarding my intentions to the women I currently see/saw.
Well, I don’t know about that - I’m still confused just reading about it after the fact. Sometimes we’re not aware of the message we’re really sending to people - that’s the benefit of these forum discussions, no? Honest feedback? Clarifying your own thoughts and/or actions?
It doesn’t seem like anyone has a personal/hate agenda against you - we’re responding to some of your comments and perceived attitudes.
Anyway, sorry if you read it as something with bad intentions.
**Artemius,[b/] I never said that men should always pay. Please re-read my posts. I originally took issue with SHAKES’ idea that a man should figure out who’s paying during the phone call to solicit the second date.
I maintained then, and I will still maintain, that that’s rude. Sorry. You don’t call somebody up, of either sex, and ask them out and then tell them that they will be paying for a portion of the entertainment. That’s rude; I don’t call my best friend up and say, “Hey, let’s hit the clubs; I’ll pay cover and you pay the bar tab.”
Nope. No dice. That’s just rude.
Ergo, a man who calls up a woman to solicit a second date–and remember, we’re working from the common assumption that it is the man doing the asking here–should assume that he’s picking up the tab. You’re the one who wants her company/her time/her sex/whatever. Be prepared to pay for it. This is your date, and your idea. She’s giving you the time of day, “trying you on for size,” so to speak; you’re paying for the privilege. Sorry. That’s just the way the cookie crumbles.
If you become fond of her, and the two of you develop a relationship, it should be assumed that unless incomes are extremely disparate, the costs will be either split, or reduced to the point that they’re a non-issue. (Meaning, the pizza/movie rental idea I already said I have no problem with, etc.)
This has nothing to do with women’s lib. You seem to think that just b/c women think they’re worth equal pay for equal work, that somehow you can get away with going Dutch on a first date. That might work in your own mind, but that’s not how the real world works. I’m not telling you what you want to hear; I’m telling you that women expect that a man who asks them out will pick up the tab. And if you find a woman who’s willing to spend the money to find out if she likes you, when you’re the one who asked her out, then more power to you.
But I don’t know any. And you’re going to come across as a real cheapskate if you act otherwise; if a man I think is “a possibility” asks me out on a date, and then expects me to pony up for the privilege of spending my Friday night with him, that’ll be his last date with me. Again, so sorry.
I’m not “asking for equality,” either. I don’t fly fighter jets; I’m not a soldier. You’re making the crucial mistake of thinking that every woman wants you to treat her like a man; if you have issues with the fact that women can make what you do, for the same work you do…if you think that a woman’s right to vote means she has to pay for the date you asked her out on…
Well, all I can say is, carpe diem. I’d like to meet the gal who’s so desperate for a date that she has to pay for the privilege. Whether you like it or not–and this is my main point–women have what men want. Therefore, women are the ones with the choice to make. The ones who have options are the ones who make the rules.
And you can suck it up or not, but the rules are in play.
Whenever Orange Skinner and I go out, I like to pay for everything, but there have been a few times when that wasn’t possible (I didn’t have enough money). It didn’t bother me, and I don’t think it bothered her either. She’s never asked me to pay for everything, but I will unless I’m told otherwise, or if I don’t have enough money.
Don’t talk to me about sucking up Ms. Scarlet and be careful not to chip a nail. The rules ARE in play, in your own mind that is.
Uh, Audrey, do I need to edit that post or can you figure out what’s mine and yours (not sure what happened).
I can tell you are going to do really well in the dating world. You are making quite an impression with all of the women here.
/agree mipiace
Originally posted by Artemius
<Annaplurabelle, I’m not sure what you are driving at regarding condoms and pregnant males. Surely you know you are preaching to the choir.>
Anna replied:
<<The condom comment wasn’t directed at you personally (ie good luck ladies??) - or to anyone in particular - both remarks were in hypothetical situations, meant to illustrate inherent sexual/gender inequality. That’s what I was driving at.>>
So now it’s personal innuendo? (good luck “ladies”)
Artemius wrote:
<Women want equality, equal pay, equal respect, want to fly combat aircraft, fight on front lines, do and have all the things men have and do. If they want equality they can’t expect to have it both ways.>
<Maybe you don’t want to admit men have a valid point here.>
<Can you explain that?>
Anna replied:
<<First of all, aren’t you preaching to the choir with this one? Not one woman on this thread has said she wouldn’t expect to share dating expenses in some form or another. >>
Not talking about the other posters here. I’m talking to you. Nor have I ever said I don’t pay for my dates. Nor have I accused any woman on this thread of not ever sharing expenses. It’s the attitude and principle I’m addressing.
<<In any case: What does any of this have to do with personal relationships or individual behaviour?>>
Women’s lib, equality, principle, attitude. If you’d take the blinders off maybe you could “see”.
<<Let’s assume some women don’t want to fly combat aircraft, fight on the front lines, or do what men do, etc. Can they apply to the gov’t for a dating expense exemption? If the two concepts are related, as you’re asserting, that isn’t so far fetched, is it? But seriously:>>
No, because it is a mindset based strictly on custom and quit being silly. You don’t score points like that. Also, it doesn’t work that way. I would have loved to have told my draft board back in ’71 that, “Hey, I’m not one of those macho type males. There’s plenty that would love to go. Go away, I’m staying home.” It doesn’t work that way, Anna. Those women dragged all women into the fray. But my point is that they shouldn’t be related.
<<What if some women don’t pay because they’re cheapskates? Aren’t some men cheapskates? What if they’re just out for what they can get. Aren’t there men like that? What if they want a traditional-role relationship? Some men want that too. >>
Hey, women’s lib made it a level playing field. Try anything you like. But if someone is just out for what they can get then those types usually get what they deserve. Sorta’ like if one marries for money you’ll earn every penny. If you want a traditional-role relationship then go for it. I don’t see how that argument helped your case any or was even relevant.
<<And plenty of men expect to have it both ways (as in double standard, for one)…
Ha, Ha, good one. Like plenty of women don’t?
<<- and I don’t see anyone suggesting we lower their pay, stop them from flying planes, take what they have, etc. until they shape up. >>
Not a logical point. That’s because WE set the standards for which YOU are striving. You see, we have the muscle and most of the power in regards to the business world and many other facets of society. You have the pussy. So, as Audrey so aptly put it, YOU should pay for the “privilege” of joining our exclusive club. Is that plain enough for you? Unless you would like to drop all this Victorian nonsense. Otherwise, I don’t think you’ll ever attain true equality in the eyes of men. What’s good for the goose…
Besides, women DO fly planes and ARE clamoring for equal pay and some DO expect to have it both ways, just like men. But, as Audrey pointed out, we men still must pay for the “privilege” (ha, that’s a good one) of going out with you. ??? On the other hand, unless you’re willing to be gay, have your vibrator become a surrogate mate, or settle for a girlfriend and her strap-on, then you still need us and vice versa (this is assuming sex is important to you; otherwise, why are you on this thread?)
<<I guess that means equal opportunities protected by law aren’t contingent on individual attitudes or behaviour, huh?>>
That’s right. Opening doors for women (as an example) (a courtesy custom) is not protected by law. It was based on a notion that women are the weaker sex and inferior and needed help opening those big Oak castle doors. Women’s lib eliminated that, by, but not limited to, for instance, insisting that physical standards be lowered (relative to that of men) for entrance into the military and firefighting schools to give the appearance of equality, as an example. So, not only do you want equal rights but you want us to lower the established standards set for men to do so.
<<Look at your own expectation: “I only date good girls (he, he), preferably Catholic with all that repressed guilt (he, he).”>>
<<Guilty Good Girls (he he, right?) who turn into Modern Women when the check arrives. That’s not wanting it both ways?>>
That was a joke, Anna. Sorry I didn’t clarify that. But, if I’m getting laid like never before and hoping the neighbors don’t hear her and claw marks on my back, I’ll gladly pick up the check. He, he!! No points there.
Artemius wrote:
<Maybe you don’t want to admit men have a valid point here.>
<<Could it be that they don’t have a valid point when they trot out that meme? It implies holding women to a higher standard than men - that women need to earn equality by being perfect or at least, more perfect than men with the same rights. Kind of patronising, isn’t it?>>
No, but nice try at faulty logic. Where did I imply women have to be more perfect than men? You (women) demand equality but expect men to pay for the privilege of spending time with you. Patronizing? How about denial of the hole N.O.W. dug for you? Incidentally, how’s those kids you stuck in daycare while you pursued your career (you, meaning not YOU specifically)?
Artemius wrote:
<You aren’t implying selective equality, are you, when it suits you?>
Anna replied:
“Absolute equality is, of course, impossible.”
- William O. Douglas (US Supreme Court)
Don’t tell N.O.W. that.
Artemius wrote:
<If I woke up and discovered I was now a woman…
I’d also like to reiterate that if I were a woman it would make a hell of a lot more sense to pay my own way.>
Anna replied:
<<When that day dawns, we’ll talk again, okay? A woman could just as easily rebut with: “If I were a man…”. And even if it did happen, it would just be one individual’s opinion/preference. Just like it is now.>>
Opinion/preference? No, just willing to practice what I preach. Sort of like what Audrey has a problem with. How else am I supposed to address the issue if not for stating what I would do?
Artemius wrote:
<This paying thing is really not a major issue for me {sorry Mipiace, Audrey, Anna} But the more I hear from the women here like Audrey, et al, the more it appears there is an interesting/curious reluctance to concede this point.>
Anna replied:
<<Huh? Cite the post where a woman says men should pay for everything. I believe the only posts that allude to that are from men>>.
O.K. Originally posed by Audrey
Ergo, a man who calls up a woman to solicit a second date–and remember, we’re working from the common assumption that it is the man doing the asking here–should assume that he’s picking up the tab. You’re the one who wants her company/her time/her sex/whatever. Be prepared to pay for it. This is your date, and your idea. She’s giving you the time of day, “trying you on for size,” so to speak; you’re paying for the privilege. Sorry. That’s just the way the cookie crumbles.
Gee, if that were a man talking about a woman I might just think he was a male, chauvinist pig. You were saying……?
Artemius wrote:
<Also, if I decide to date the check-out clerk a the local supermarket then it’s obvious I’ll be paying and I’ve no problem with that but this is not what I’m referring to and all of you know it.>
<<How would we know that? Women who “love” being called girls don’t bring to mind high caliber professionals, and you never specified anything other than “gainfully employed”. That could be low wage, couldn’t it? Do you adjust for any income disparity, or just extreme differences? >>
Because I’m telling you. What, I’m a liar too? Why are you slipping into character assassination now? Why don’t you speak for yourself before deciding to slam some girls you have never met. I’ve really touched a nerve, haven’t I? You’re ship is slowly sinking and it’s painful to watch.
Artemius wrote:
<IMO, I think girls see me as a single doc ($$$)>
Anna replied:
<<You mean as opposed to seeing you as, say, a married bus driver?>>
Huh? But, yes, I think it would make a difference.
<<You are a single doctor. >>
So?
<<And I still think the $$$ is your issue, for the most part>>
Think what you like since you don’t want to believe what I am telling you. It’s principle, how many times do I have to tell you? How about I think you are a closet man-hater? Not fair, you say? Good, so let’s quit making assumptions about one another aand stick to the discussion of who pays and why.
<< We’re talking about dating, right? Believe it or not, men who earn considerably less than you are capable of spending just as much on dates. Or more. To wit: If you think it’s reasonable that the women you’re dating split expenses, then the actual money spent must be a reasonable sum, right? I mean, I assume we’re not talking about flying to Paris for the weekend, limo rides to Vegas, expensive baubles as gifts, etc. So why should dating you be any more enticing strictly for financial reasons?>>
Nope and quit mixing apples and oranges. It’s reasonable that after a period of dating a woman that she should begin to pony-up. And if the lady/gal/girl/woman is having financial difficulties she should say so and by all means I’ll pay. What I’m talking about is integrity and principle. If she can afford to pay, she pays and no game playing. None of this Audrey’s bullshit about paying for the privilege and what-not.
<<Obviously, we’re focusing on you in regards to the who pays issue - you’re the OP, aren’t you?>>
I agree you made that assumption. I don’t agree that’s what this thread was about—originally.
<<We can’t address comments to the women you’ve dated, can we? It was your choice to discuss it, and your choice to post personal information about yourself. I don’t understand why you’re suddenly so defensive about personal comments and/or differing opinions. Aren’t you the guy who said:
"I can take it." ???>>
Why are you so defensive about who pays? The difference is that other than my personal comment about you above to make a point, I am not making derogatory comments about you or people you date like you have and Audrey and Mipiace about me specifically. I detect a lot of man hostility. I may appear defensive to you because I find your arguments so illogical from a logical approach that it begs rebuttal. I have nothing but logic and principle to defend. I can still take it if you choose to continue.
Artemius wrote:
<I don’t think I ever projected a confusing message regarding my intentions to the women I currently see/saw.>
Anna replied:
<<Well, I don’t know about that - I’m still confused just reading about it after the fact. Sometimes we’re not aware of the message we’re really sending to people - that’s the benefit of these forum discussions, no? Honest feedback? Clarifying your own thoughts and/or actions? >>
There you go again. Don’t you think it would be better that if you can’t accept what I’m saying about a personally hel belief then just don’t reply to that statement? Otherwise, why don’t you just come out and call me a liar. I don’t mind honest feedback as long as it’s not based on false assumptions.
Anna wrote:
<<It doesn’t seem like anyone has a personal/hate agenda against you - we’re responding to some of your comments and perceived attitudes.>>
<<Anyway, sorry if you read it as something with bad intentions.>>
Since I never used the words or insinuated them myself, it is interesting that you used them----“personal/hate agenda”. Yoo-hoooh…Freud…where are you? (images of Titanic slowly slipping beneath the frigid waters)
Try Speed dating. You won’t have to spend money on dinner and they won’t have time to find out what your attitudes and opinions are about women.
I read a similarly themed post on another board.
Doctor Chris, is that you?
mipiace, I tried speed dating. 6 minutes can be an awfully damn long time, and it WOULD be enough time to learn his attitudes and opinions about women…which would be good in the long run. Then again, he probably won’t want to pay for the opportunity to meet women.
Try Speed dating. You won’t have to spend money on dinner and they won’t have time to find out what your attitudes and opinions are about women.
You can say all day “I never said that” but pretty much everyone is picking up in your attitude that you are very chauvenistic. Iknow, I know…you never said that. But you imply that in every dripping fighter pilot bra burning sarcastic I’m a hottie doctor comment. You really don’t have to come out and spell it out. If it were ONE person thinking that then maybe I am a Freudian nutcase as you would liek to imply that I have all these issues but you have implied one by one that we are all just silly little bra burning wenches with issues - but you know what they say about when you think EVERYONE ELSE HAS A PROBLEM…no why does every female that responded not have a problem with paying but take offense to the comments and generalizations you make about women? Have you considered that you are making offensive comments about women? Have y ou considered this is not an attractive quality for a man who is fresh on the dating market regardless of what his profession?
Honest feedback not based on false assumption…you aren’t going to get that on a message board. We don’t know your whole life story - only what you present and you are presenting a picture of a pretty closed minded person. That is what I’m basing feedback on and you are not liking it much. So I think that is what was meat about not being about not being about the message we are sending. She wasn’t calling you a liar - just saying maybe you weren’t aware that you are painting a picture of a narrow minded male chauvenist. You probably aren’t that at all. I’m thinking you are so caught up in proving your point, you are not about to back down regardless what it makes you look like…then again maybe not…I really don’t know. Think about it…are y ou arguing just to argue?
The beginning point we all agree on - money, everyone should share. But you have made some really lame and condescending comments about women that I find really offensive and off base. You have been married a long time and I think you need to find your self in the 21st century a lot has changed since 1986. Women are not going to put up with that cave man attitude. Women do not need to marry for security anymore - that left with Laura Petry thanks to my fighter plane flying sisters. I can pay my own damned mortgage and really don’t care of I ever get marriaed again. I can pay my own kids college tuition - all three of them thank y ou.
Artemius: I was about to post this to forstall a repeat performance, but I got knocked off and you beat me to it. On initial review, I see you’re still using retorts in place of responding to the idea of what is being said. Sorry, I don’t play that way. Read the posts again and present an argument based on the content. Or not. Your posting style is difficult to read, but so far I don’t follow your points as being anything but obfuscation and evasion. If my posts were that unclear to you, then maybe we’re too far apart in communication style to discuss anything. Sorry about that. Here’s my reply, written before your last one. I think it still applies:
Originally posted by Artemius
Now I have to address Anna’s post and will probably end up repeating this but I never said I had problems paying for my dates in the beginning. You and Anna appear to have some issues that I find interesting.
Artemius, if you’re just going to repeat yourself please save yourself the trouble. I’m not interested in responding to the debating tactics you have used here so far. mipiace gave you a compliment, and you responded with an insult. The fact that you neither apologised, nor conceded that you misconstrued what she was saying tells me you are no longer interested in a rational, civil debate. I thought you were a “good listener”???
I’ll save you some guesswork. These are my “issues” as they pertain to your situation:
- The disingenuousness of referring to your “dates” as outings with “friends”. “Friends” does not equal “pussy”.
- Your seemingly perverse delight in “guilt”. Other peoples’ guilt. The impression that you get off on the idea that a woman might feel bad about sex is both unsettling, and especially distasteful in a 50 y.o. physician. Call me old-fashioned, but I think if you want to get off on guilty feelings, they should be your own.
- The objectification of women. Repeatedly, in your posts, usually followed by snickers.
- The chilling remark that if women are unequal, it is okay to treat them unfairly, or without respect, or to discriminate against them with impunity. If there was ever a poster boy for the necessity of the ERA, you are a prime contender.
- The subtle disparaging of gays and Catholics. I don’t like to think of anyone as a stereotype, but you make it very difficult not to.
I don’t have a who pays issue - I’ve stated my position on that (ie relative to an individual situation). Agree or not; it works for me. I’m not in favour of applying absolutes to anything other than the hard sciences.
I stand by my previous posts, including apologies for anything misconstrued through lack of information. I will not respond to anything but civil rational arguments in response to what I have posted - I can’t speak for anyone else posting here, nor do I represent the view of “all women”. I would appreciate the distinction made between individual opinion on this thread. I don’t think of you as representing “all men”, and would ask you to extend the same courtesy to individual women.
If this is agreeable to you, I look forward to your reply. If not, I wish you all the best in future endeavours.
ps What’s with the “there you go again” ??? Are you Ronald Reagan? That’s just one example of nefarious debating tactics. Sorry, not interested.
ANNAPLURABELLE FOR PRESIDENT!!!
ANNAPLURABELLE FOR PRESIDENT!!!
Originally posted by Artemius
That’s because WE set the standards for which YOU are striving. You see, we have the muscle and most of the power in regards to the business world and many other facets of society. You have the pussy. So, as Audrey so aptly put it, YOU should pay for the “privilege” of joining our exclusive club. Is that plain enough for you?
On review, I don’t think there’s any way we could even begin to discuss anything. Your position here, and in similar retorts, is beyond my consideration.
Think what you like about what I’ve posted, or me personally. I don’t have any respect for your “principles” posted here, so I can’t expect you to have any for mine. I’m sorry it’s like that.
Anna posted:
<<Artemius: I was about to post this to forstall a repeat performance, but I got knocked off and you beat me to it. On initial review, I see you’re still using retorts in place of responding to the idea of what is being said.>>
I disagree. Examples please. I responded to all salient “attempts” at an argument.
<<Sorry, I don’t play that way. Read the posts again and present an argument based on the content. Or not. Your posting style is difficult to read, but so far I don’t follow your points as being anything but obfuscation and evasion.>>
It is my fault you cannot grasp logic? I have presented plenty of logical argument that you are apparently failing to comprehend. Not my fault.
Originally posted by Artemius
<Now I have to address Anna’s post and will probably end up repeating this but I never said I had problems paying for my dates in the beginning. You and Anna appear to have some issues that I find interesting. >
Anna posted:
<<Artemius, if you’re just going to repeat yourself please save yourself the trouble.>>
I wouldn’t feel the necessity if you didn’t perpetually fail to understand simple logic and keep repeating the same errors.
<<I’m not interested in responding to the debating tactics you have used here so far.>>
Tactics that undermine your position? Yep, I’d probably feel the same way if I were in your shoes.
<<mipiace gave you a compliment, and you responded with an insult. The fact that you neither apologised, nor conceded that you misconstrued what she was saying tells me you are no longer interested in a rational, civil debate. I thought you were a “good listener”???>>
Leave Mipiace out of it and quit using her to deflect attention from your shaky position. Who made you a judge? Besides, you attack me and my dates personally so you have no room to talk. So don’t act all sanctimonius by using words such as rational and civil. Besides, you’re no one to talk about “insults”. What’s that they say about finger pointing: there’s 3 pointing at yourself.
Anna posted:
<<I’ll save you some guesswork. These are my “issues” as they pertain to your situation:>>
<<1) The disingenuousness of referring to your “dates” as outings with “friends”. “Friends” does not equal “pussy”.>>
Says who, you? Taking things out of context is your specialty, I see. Besides, what does that have to do with who pays and why? More deflection. This post of yours is turning out to be nothing but a personal attack. But, please continue…
<<2) Your seemingly perverse delight in “guilt”. Other peoples’ guilt. The impression that you get off on the idea that a woman might feel bad about sex is both unsettling, and especially distasteful in a 50 y.o. physician. Call me old-fashioned, but I think if you want to get off on guilty feelings, they should be your own.>>
This is the whole issue, now, isn’t it? You’ve taken it to a personal level. You are dragging your own assumptions and judgments about me into the debate because you can’t present a logical argument. To me, that is quite unsettling and distasteful as well. Not only that but ridiculous since you aren’t able to discern humor when presented. Jokes about Catholic girls and their guilt aren’t something I invented and are presented on late night talk shows from time to time.
<<3) The objectification of women. Repeatedly, in your posts, usually followed by snickers.>>
You were perfectly free not to respond. Why do you if I unsettle you so much? I don’t objectify women but you are certainly free to continue with your judging and assuming.
<<4) The chilling remark that if women are unequal, it is okay to treat them unfairly, or without respect, or to discriminate against them with impunity. If there was ever a poster boy for the necessity of the ERA, you are a prime contender.>>
Get off your high horse, O.K.? “Chilling”? You’re not a drama major by any chance? And I never said I thought it was O.K. to treat women unfairly, etc—YOU ASSUMED THAT. I merely pointed out a FACT OF LIFE. You need to pay more attention to detail.
<<5) The subtle disparaging of gays and Catholics. I don’t like to think of anyone as a stereotype, but you make it very difficult not to.>>
JUDGE, JUDGE, JUDGE, ASSUME, ASSUME, ASSUME. Do you have any pertinent remarks to the topic of this thread or or you content with judging me? Christian girl are we?
<<I don’t have a who pays issue - I’ve stated my position on that (ie relative to an individual situation). Agree or not; it works for me. I’m not in favour of applying absolutes to anything other than the hard sciences.>>
I’ve stated my position as well, ad nauseum, and WHY, quite succinctly and logically.
<<I stand by my previous posts, including apologies for anything misconstrued through lack of information. I will not respond to anything but civil rational arguments in response to what I have posted - I can’t speak for anyone else posting here, nor do I represent the view of “all women”. I would appreciate the distinction made between individual opinion on this thread. I don’t think of you as representing “all men”, and would ask you to extend the same courtesy to individual women.>>
And I would appreciate you keeping your unfounded judgments to yourself, stick to the argument, and quit making personal attacks when you can’t (like 95% of this post was).
<<If this is agreeable to you, I look forward to your reply. If not, I wish you all the best in future endeavours.>>
As long as you can keep you emotions in check and logic to the forefront, I look forward to your reply; otherwise, sayanora.
<<ps What’s with the “there you go again” ??? Are you Ronald Reagan? That’s just one example of nefarious debating tactics. Sorry, not interested.>>
Uhhh…Anna…Nefarious debating tactic? It was used in a frickin’ presidential debate fer chris’sakes and was quite acceptable…duh? Mondale was just sorry he didn’t think of it first! (Titanic just disappeared in a cacophony of moans, creaks, groans, and foamy brine)
Anna wrote:
<<Huh? Cite the post where a woman says men should pay for everything. I believe the only posts that allude to that are from men>>.
Artemius replied:
<O.K. Originally posed by Audrey>
Audrey posted:
Ergo, a man who calls up a woman to solicit a second date–and remember, we’re working from the common assumption that it is the man doing the asking here–should assume that he’s picking up the tab. You’re the one who wants her company/her time/her sex/whatever. Be prepared to pay for it. This is your date, and your idea. She’s giving you the time of day, “trying you on for size,” so to speak; you’re paying for the privilege. Sorry. That’s just the way the cookie crumbles.
Artemius wrote:
<<Gee, if that were a man talking about a woman I might just think he was a male, chauvinist pig. You were saying……?>>
So Anna, I guess you overlooked this in your reply. Guess it’s just another example of me not reading and presenting and argument. How negligent of me.
I agree. You and I have nothing further to say other than I wouldn’t try your approach on Great Debates. They don’t tolerate your type of behavior there that you displayed here.
Boy you sure do like to kick people out of your thread when they disagree with you…but that’s the trouble with public forums. They can respond whether you like what they or not. Dammit! communist gay leftwing liberal femminist catholic bitches unite !