Affairs of the heart…

[PCinSD]

Looks like most people jumped in on this and posted much of what I’d echo.

I’m divorced, late 30’s, occasionally date. I’ve never thought of a prenup, but then again I haven’t seriously thought of marriage after mine failed. People have moral, religious, financial concerns that play into the decision of whether to have a prenup. It’s a purely personal decision. Given your situation (divorced) it can’t hurt.

If you don’t believe him, how exactly does buying you a nice dinner change that? That’s all it takes? You should have a better rationale for disbelieving his stated feelings for you other than the fact he hasn’t bought you a nice dinner.

By the way, you may remember the “Seinfeld” episode where George asked his fiancee for a prenup. Not because he needed one, but because he thought she would leave him if he asked her to sign. (It was Kramer’s idea) Turns out it didn’t matter anyway. I’m not saying this guy is trying to scare you away, but asking for a prenup doesn’t mean he has significant assets either.

As a single man, here’s my cynical take on the lunch dates: He finds you attractive but isn’t sold on you. He has other things going on in the evening that are a sure thing. He thinks if you believe he really likes you, he’ll get to see you naked. He just doesn’t want to have to cut into the valuable time he spends with the friends he’s known for years, or the other women he dates. In a nutshell, after 4 dates, he probably wants to know he’s got a decent chance of getting some if he shells out the bucks and time for a nice dinner. Given your postings, it doesn’t appear that’ll happen anytime soon for him.

Doesn’t make him a bad guy. But perhaps not the right guy for you. If you thought he was sincere about really liking you, would you sleep with him? I’m just wondering if my theory holds any water. I know it’s personal, but that ship sailed awhile ago. Best of luck.

pabloesqobar

[Anonymous]

dave: “I’ll spare you a long diatribe on evolutionary psychology but, put simply, a man’s ability to make money is a signal, albeit a somewhat flawed one, of his ability to protect and provide for a woman and (their future?) children. (The biggest problem here is that there is a difference between “ability” and “willingness.”) Twenty thousand years ago agility and brute strength were a man’s primary evolutionary advantage in attracting females.”

No need. I love a good discussion.

Agreed. The man was the protector of the women and children who because of their physical make-up were not able to defend themselves against the much stronger man.

“Today brute strength, looks, etc. definitely help, but IN GENERAL TERMS the most important trait in attracting females is, quite obviously, the ability to make money. (THIS IS NOT A GOOD OR BAD THING HOWEVER. It’s merely an evolutionary adaptation – it’s morally neutral.) The vast majority of women over the age of 25 subconsciously know this to be true whether or not they are willing to admit it to themselves.”

I don’t agree with this. You’re generalizing women. This is the exact attitudes that keep us from earning the same salary you do even though we do the exact same job.

In today’s world, there are those of us who don’t care what our significant other makes. I’m one of them. I put myself through college just so I can have the opportunity to provide myself with the lifestyle I desire. Not only do I not need a man to provide it for me, but I don’t want him to.

Am I in the minority? With the amount of vapid women in existence today, probably. That said, there are many others like me. However, if a woman hasn’t had children yet and both desire them and want to stay at home and raise them, unless she’s had time to save for this event (or wealthy parents), then you’d be right.

And what’s this about kids being a bad idea? I guess we should let the human race die out then.

[Anonymous]

dave: “I’ll spare you a long diatribe on evolutionary psychology but, put simply, a man’s ability to make money is a signal, albeit a somewhat flawed one, of his ability to protect and provide for a woman and (their future?) children. (The biggest problem here is that there is a difference between “ability” and “willingness.”) Twenty thousand years ago agility and brute strength were a man’s primary evolutionary advantage in attracting females.”

No need. I love a good discussion.

Agreed. The man was the protector of the women and children who because of their physical make-up were not able to defend themselves against the much stronger man.

“Today brute strength, looks, etc. definitely help, but IN GENERAL TERMS the most important trait in attracting females is, quite obviously, the ability to make money. (THIS IS NOT A GOOD OR BAD THING HOWEVER. It’s merely an evolutionary adaptation – it’s morally neutral.) The vast majority of women over the age of 25 subconsciously know this to be true whether or not they are willing to admit it to themselves.”

I don’t agree with this. You’re generalizing women. This is the exact attitudes that keep us from earning the same salary you do even though we do the exact same job.

In today’s world, there are those of us who don’t care what our significant other makes. I’m one of them. I put myself through college just so I can have the opportunity to provide myself with the lifestyle I desire. Not only do I not need a man to provide it for me, but I don’t want him to.

Am I in the minority? With the amount of vapid women in existence today, probably. That said, there are many others like me. However, if a woman hasn’t had children yet and both desire them and want to stay at home and raise them, unless she’s had time to save for this event (or wealthy parents), then you’d be right.

And what’s this about kids being a bad idea? I guess we should let the human race die out then.

[Anonymous]

dave: “I’ll spare you a long diatribe on evolutionary psychology but, put simply, a man’s ability to make money is a signal, albeit a somewhat flawed one, of his ability to protect and provide for a woman and (their future?) children. (The biggest problem here is that there is a difference between “ability” and “willingness.”) Twenty thousand years ago agility and brute strength were a man’s primary evolutionary advantage in attracting females.”

No need. I love a good discussion.

Agreed. The man was the protector of the women and children who because of their physical make-up were not able to defend themselves against the much stronger man.

“Today brute strength, looks, etc. definitely help, but IN GENERAL TERMS the most important trait in attracting females is, quite obviously, the ability to make money. (THIS IS NOT A GOOD OR BAD THING HOWEVER. It’s merely an evolutionary adaptation – it’s morally neutral.) The vast majority of women over the age of 25 subconsciously know this to be true whether or not they are willing to admit it to themselves.”

I don’t agree with this. You’re generalizing women. This is the exact attitudes that keep us from earning the same salary you do even though we do the exact same job.

In today’s world, there are those of us who don’t care what our significant other makes. I’m one of them. I put myself through college just so I can have the opportunity to provide myself with the lifestyle I desire. Not only do I not need a man to provide it for me, but I don’t want him to.

Am I in the minority? With the amount of vapid women in existence today, probably. That said, there are many others like me. However, if a woman hasn’t had children yet and both desire them and want to stay at home and raise them, unless she’s had time to save for this event (or wealthy parents), then you’d be right.

And what’s this about kids being a bad idea? I guess we should let the human race die out then.

[Anonymous]

dave: “I’ll spare you a long diatribe on evolutionary psychology but, put simply, a man’s ability to make money is a signal, albeit a somewhat flawed one, of his ability to protect and provide for a woman and (their future?) children. (The biggest problem here is that there is a difference between “ability” and “willingness.”) Twenty thousand years ago agility and brute strength were a man’s primary evolutionary advantage in attracting females.”

No need. I love a good discussion.

Agreed. The man was the protector of the women and children who because of their physical make-up were not able to defend themselves against the much stronger man.

“Today brute strength, looks, etc. definitely help, but IN GENERAL TERMS the most important trait in attracting females is, quite obviously, the ability to make money. (THIS IS NOT A GOOD OR BAD THING HOWEVER. It’s merely an evolutionary adaptation – it’s morally neutral.) The vast majority of women over the age of 25 subconsciously know this to be true whether or not they are willing to admit it to themselves.”

I don’t agree with this. You’re generalizing women. This is the exact attitudes that keep us from earning the same salary you do even though we do the exact same job.

In today’s world, there are those of us who don’t care what our significant other makes. I’m one of them. I put myself through college just so I can have the opportunity to provide myself with the lifestyle I desire. Not only do I not need a man to provide it for me, but I don’t want him to.

Am I in the minority? With the amount of vapid women in existence today, probably. That said, there are many others like me. However, if a woman hasn’t had children yet and both desire them and want to stay at home and raise them, unless she’s had time to save for this event (or wealthy parents), then you’d be right.

And what’s this about kids being a bad idea? I guess we should let the human race die out then.

[Anonymous]

dave: “I’ll spare you a long diatribe on evolutionary psychology but, put simply, a man’s ability to make money is a signal, albeit a somewhat flawed one, of his ability to protect and provide for a woman and (their future?) children. (The biggest problem here is that there is a difference between “ability” and “willingness.”) Twenty thousand years ago agility and brute strength were a man’s primary evolutionary advantage in attracting females.”

No need. I love a good discussion.

Agreed. The man was the protector of the women and children who because of their physical make-up were not able to defend themselves against the much stronger man.

“Today brute strength, looks, etc. definitely help, but IN GENERAL TERMS the most important trait in attracting females is, quite obviously, the ability to make money. (THIS IS NOT A GOOD OR BAD THING HOWEVER. It’s merely an evolutionary adaptation – it’s morally neutral.) The vast majority of women over the age of 25 subconsciously know this to be true whether or not they are willing to admit it to themselves.”

I don’t agree with this. You’re generalizing women. This is the exact attitudes that keep us from earning the same salary you do even though we do the exact same job.

In today’s world, there are those of us who don’t care what our significant other makes. I’m one of them. I put myself through college just so I can have the opportunity to provide myself with the lifestyle I desire. Not only do I not need a man to provide it for me, but I don’t want him to.

Am I in the minority? With the amount of vapid women in existence today, probably. That said, there are many others like me. However, if a woman hasn’t had children yet and both desire them and want to stay at home and raise them, unless she’s had time to save for this event (or wealthy parents), then you’d be right.

And what’s this about kids being a bad idea? I guess we should let the human race die out then.

[Anonymous]

pablo: “As a single man, here’s my cynical take on the lunch dates: He finds you attractive but isn’t sold on you. He has other things going on in the evening that are a sure thing. He thinks if you believe he really likes you, he’ll get to see you naked. He just doesn’t want to have to cut into the valuable time he spends with the friends he’s known for years, or the other women he dates. In a nutshell, after 4 dates, he probably wants to know he’s got a decent chance of getting some if he shells out the bucks and time for a nice dinner. Given your postings, it doesn’t appear that’ll happen anytime soon for him.”

He said I’m the only one he’s dating. Of course, we all know it doesn’t mean this is truth.

There has been no agreement of exclusivity.

“Doesn’t make him a bad guy. But perhaps not the right guy for you. If you thought he was sincere about really liking you, would you sleep with him? I’m just wondering if my theory holds any water. I know it’s personal, but that ship sailed awhile ago. Best of luck.”

I only desire intimacy with men I believe like me. But, this isn’t the issue here. I think he does. I think he’s not sure I like HIM, so he doesn’t want to overspend (in his mind) until he’s sure. The other likely posibility is he’s stingy (not to be confussed with prudence), which is something I don’t like. Actually, I don’t like my first suspicion either because it means he’s lumping me into a category based on past experiences with other women. As some of you suggested though, I could be sensitive to that by telling him I’d like to do something different and he can take that info and do with it what he likes.

[Anonymous]

pablo: “As a single man, here’s my cynical take on the lunch dates: He finds you attractive but isn’t sold on you. He has other things going on in the evening that are a sure thing. He thinks if you believe he really likes you, he’ll get to see you naked. He just doesn’t want to have to cut into the valuable time he spends with the friends he’s known for years, or the other women he dates. In a nutshell, after 4 dates, he probably wants to know he’s got a decent chance of getting some if he shells out the bucks and time for a nice dinner. Given your postings, it doesn’t appear that’ll happen anytime soon for him.”

He said I’m the only one he’s dating. Of course, we all know it doesn’t mean this is truth.

There has been no agreement of exclusivity.

“Doesn’t make him a bad guy. But perhaps not the right guy for you. If you thought he was sincere about really liking you, would you sleep with him? I’m just wondering if my theory holds any water. I know it’s personal, but that ship sailed awhile ago. Best of luck.”

I only desire intimacy with men I believe like me. But, this isn’t the issue here. I think he does. I think he’s not sure I like HIM, so he doesn’t want to overspend (in his mind) until he’s sure. The other likely posibility is he’s stingy (not to be confussed with prudence), which is something I don’t like. Actually, I don’t like my first suspicion either because it means he’s lumping me into a category based on past experiences with other women. As some of you suggested though, I could be sensitive to that by telling him I’d like to do something different and he can take that info and do with it what he likes.

[Anonymous]

pablo: “As a single man, here’s my cynical take on the lunch dates: He finds you attractive but isn’t sold on you. He has other things going on in the evening that are a sure thing. He thinks if you believe he really likes you, he’ll get to see you naked. He just doesn’t want to have to cut into the valuable time he spends with the friends he’s known for years, or the other women he dates. In a nutshell, after 4 dates, he probably wants to know he’s got a decent chance of getting some if he shells out the bucks and time for a nice dinner. Given your postings, it doesn’t appear that’ll happen anytime soon for him.”

He said I’m the only one he’s dating. Of course, we all know it doesn’t mean this is truth.

There has been no agreement of exclusivity.

“Doesn’t make him a bad guy. But perhaps not the right guy for you. If you thought he was sincere about really liking you, would you sleep with him? I’m just wondering if my theory holds any water. I know it’s personal, but that ship sailed awhile ago. Best of luck.”

I only desire intimacy with men I believe like me. But, this isn’t the issue here. I think he does. I think he’s not sure I like HIM, so he doesn’t want to overspend (in his mind) until he’s sure. The other likely posibility is he’s stingy (not to be confussed with prudence), which is something I don’t like. Actually, I don’t like my first suspicion either because it means he’s lumping me into a category based on past experiences with other women. As some of you suggested though, I could be sensitive to that by telling him I’d like to do something different and he can take that info and do with it what he likes.

[Anonymous]

pablo: “As a single man, here’s my cynical take on the lunch dates: He finds you attractive but isn’t sold on you. He has other things going on in the evening that are a sure thing. He thinks if you believe he really likes you, he’ll get to see you naked. He just doesn’t want to have to cut into the valuable time he spends with the friends he’s known for years, or the other women he dates. In a nutshell, after 4 dates, he probably wants to know he’s got a decent chance of getting some if he shells out the bucks and time for a nice dinner. Given your postings, it doesn’t appear that’ll happen anytime soon for him.”

He said I’m the only one he’s dating. Of course, we all know it doesn’t mean this is truth.

There has been no agreement of exclusivity.

“Doesn’t make him a bad guy. But perhaps not the right guy for you. If you thought he was sincere about really liking you, would you sleep with him? I’m just wondering if my theory holds any water. I know it’s personal, but that ship sailed awhile ago. Best of luck.”

I only desire intimacy with men I believe like me. But, this isn’t the issue here. I think he does. I think he’s not sure I like HIM, so he doesn’t want to overspend (in his mind) until he’s sure. The other likely posibility is he’s stingy (not to be confussed with prudence), which is something I don’t like. Actually, I don’t like my first suspicion either because it means he’s lumping me into a category based on past experiences with other women. As some of you suggested though, I could be sensitive to that by telling him I’d like to do something different and he can take that info and do with it what he likes.

[Anonymous]

pablo: “As a single man, here’s my cynical take on the lunch dates: He finds you attractive but isn’t sold on you. He has other things going on in the evening that are a sure thing. He thinks if you believe he really likes you, he’ll get to see you naked. He just doesn’t want to have to cut into the valuable time he spends with the friends he’s known for years, or the other women he dates. In a nutshell, after 4 dates, he probably wants to know he’s got a decent chance of getting some if he shells out the bucks and time for a nice dinner. Given your postings, it doesn’t appear that’ll happen anytime soon for him.”

He said I’m the only one he’s dating. Of course, we all know it doesn’t mean this is truth.

There has been no agreement of exclusivity.

“Doesn’t make him a bad guy. But perhaps not the right guy for you. If you thought he was sincere about really liking you, would you sleep with him? I’m just wondering if my theory holds any water. I know it’s personal, but that ship sailed awhile ago. Best of luck.”

I only desire intimacy with men I believe like me. But, this isn’t the issue here. I think he does. I think he’s not sure I like HIM, so he doesn’t want to overspend (in his mind) until he’s sure. The other likely posibility is he’s stingy (not to be confussed with prudence), which is something I don’t like. Actually, I don’t like my first suspicion either because it means he’s lumping me into a category based on past experiences with other women. As some of you suggested though, I could be sensitive to that by telling him I’d like to do something different and he can take that info and do with it what he likes.

[novice1027]

I say if you have this many questions about someone after four dates. Stop wasting yours and his time.
Besides, when I was single I always figured it was best to sleep with the guy first, that way if he was lousy in bed, I wouldn’t waste anymore of my time, lol!!

[novice1027]

I say if you have this many questions about someone after four dates. Stop wasting yours and his time.
Besides, when I was single I always figured it was best to sleep with the guy first, that way if he was lousy in bed, I wouldn’t waste anymore of my time, lol!!

[novice1027]

I say if you have this many questions about someone after four dates. Stop wasting yours and his time.
Besides, when I was single I always figured it was best to sleep with the guy first, that way if he was lousy in bed, I wouldn’t waste anymore of my time, lol!!

[novice1027]

I say if you have this many questions about someone after four dates. Stop wasting yours and his time.
Besides, when I was single I always figured it was best to sleep with the guy first, that way if he was lousy in bed, I wouldn’t waste anymore of my time, lol!!

[Author]

Posts