Quote:
Quote:
What they really should be doing is instead of saying "NEVER SPEND MONEY IN EXCESS OF $34.83 ON A DATE" is find out why they were spending that money in their AFC past. Probably had to do with buying acceptance or something -- this issue should be worked on and not just covered up with a band aid rule about spending money on dates.
That pretty much sums it up..
I took my girl to the cinema and didn't pay for her because I thought it would be a DLV to pay on a first date because back in the AFC days I primarily paid for dates. Looking back the real reason they probably left me was not because I was over-providing but rather displaying AFC traits. Anyway now I think not providing is actually a DLV especially to a girl you have already fucked if your wanting to get serious with her.. so after taking her to the cinema, letting her pay and then fucking her again she flaked on dinner the following week. I froze out on her as a punishment and it doesn't look like she is going to bother making contact again.
I see where I went wrong.. onto the next one
The problem here, as exemplified in your post and for the majority of posters on this board (including Hellhound), is the attempt to dichotomize women, or look at them solely through an evolutionary lens.
What some of you are failing to grasp is that although some behavior is 'hard-coded' from our primordial past, a lot of behaviors are culturally conditioned. Its not easy to discern which overrides the other in times of cognitive dissonance (e.g. hard-coded psychological behavior vs. culturally imbued behavior) as either one can have a detrimental effect towards the person's wellbeing.
One can reap large rewards from taking large risks, and vice-a-versa. A woman who is 'chaste' is a woman who was traditionally prized and sought-after by many suitors. This, however didn't stop men from pursuing so-called charlatans, or 'loose' women. Of course going against the grain of society has historically lead to distancing behavior (e.g., 'cheaters' or those who run amuck over society's conventions and rules would often find themselves ostracized and left to their own device).
I digress. Women are not all the same. While we still live in a largely patriarchal society, gender lines are becoming blurred and in many ways androgenous behaviors are changing the way in which the sexes frame things. We live in a society of abundance, most of living well beyond our means (the average person has a far greater quality of life than even to which was afforded to elite of the past).
That said, some women were brought up with the notion that men are the providers, whereas others take to more egalitarian roles where neither partner is more the provider than the other, rather that both provide for each other (quid pro quo). I know some women who insist on paying for themselves on first dates, while others believe if the guy doesn't pay he isn't all that interested in her (which may mean to her that he's not willing to 'provide' for her). There's nothing AFC about paying for a date, if that's what you want to do. The AFC does things out of a sense of obligation as approval-seeking behavior. In other words, its not so much the behavior that's off-putting, but rather the motive behind it (which incidentally many women pickup on).
CHAT
