Do women exist?

[Lur]

Almost a research , I like it What's wrong with "soul mate"? Do you understand what it means? "Sports" is a general word meaning more "active way of life without sitting on the sofa in front of the TV". "Good manners", well, you're kind of against it, probably you like public farting, or blowing one's nose right on the side-walk? And, Lur, I'm disappointed that your woman shouldn't be intelligent.

No no, I was referring to me and my perceived failures. To see how I fit in that list.

The soul mate thing just felt abstract to me at the moment. I supposedly like a fun, active life, although I have failed quite a bit at it lately for complicated reasons.

[linguoboy]

And I'm pretty sure that percentage of people in your environment who were raped is quite low.

I don't see that you've got any reliable basis for making that kind of assertion.

Incidentally, what do you consider a "low percentage" when it comes to rape? Less than 50%? Les than 10%? Less than 1%?

People here can be very altruistic, most men are if they fell in love (okay, I met such men). People from villages are incredibly altruistic, I'm very impressed by their hospitality and alike. Probably they will expect some help from you in the future but this future is quite unknown and then it's called "friendship".

Did they extend the same courtesy to mentally-ill homeless people that they did to you? Would they still be as hospitable if you didn't speak to them or make eye contact?

It's not simply a matter of reciprocating in kind. The return can be purely internal and intangible. Society tells us that good people help others without expecting anything in return. If I help you without expecting something in return, that makes me one of those good people, and that makes me feel good about myself. Thus "altruistic" acts produce psychological rewards--which in turn can produce tangible benefits such as improved health and longer lives.

Personally, I've found that most people's willingness to be "altruistic" depends on getting psychological rewards. Chief among these is recognition. Lots of people in this world donate money; a far smaller percentage donate money anonymously. Haven't you ever had the experience of performing a kindness for someone and being ignored? How did that make you feel?

Now with this in mind, let's go back to something Varislintu said:

The model where only men pay (for only women) creates a situation where a woman will always be unable to reciprocate with money. She's not culturally allowed to. (You yourself demonstrated this by saying you'd get pissed off!) She can only follow her socialisation (i.e. being nice, considerate, and fulfilling reciprocation) by reciprocating with something else.

Heterosexual men will go to great lengths to receive attention from women. (Isn't this the plot of basically every romantic comedy ever?) How happy do you think a man would be to pay for a woman's meal only to have her ask for it to be wrapped up so she could take it away and eat it with someone else? At the very least the man has the expectation that he is entitled to that woman's time. It's a small step from feeling entitled to that to feeling entitled to other things as well.

Of course people want something, but it's not like - "I payed for you, so lie on the bed now ", or is it so anywhere? I don't think that it's a very widespread model of building true relationships.

Nobody said it was. Not every man is interested in a "true relationship". That's the root of the problem. If it were otherwise, there wouldn't be any need to for defensive behaviours. But as it is, the rapists often look exactly like the nice ones. That's why people take precautions. And one of those precautions is not being put in a position where there other person has any kind of power over you--even if that power is merely the societal expectation that you owe them time and attention.

Women are socialised to be pleasant and accommodating. And men are socialised to expect this from women. Interactions between the sexes start off fundamentally imbalanced. So it's reasonable to take steps to keep that imbalance to a minimum. An enlightened man is aware of that imbalance and will do what he can to blunt its effects. One of the ways he can accomplish that is by offering to pay but not insisting, and not taking it personally if the other person declines. This demonstrates that he realises there is more at stake here than just his own fragile ego. That's the kind of man you can have a "true relationship" with.

[Varislintu]

An enlightened man is aware of that imbalance and will do what he can to blunt its effects. One of the ways he can accomplish that is by offering to pay but not insisting, and not taking it personally if the other person declines. This demonstrates that he realises there is more at stake here than just his own fragile ego. That's the kind of man you can have a "true relationship" with.

Yes, this exactly.

[Ludwig Whitby]

An enlightened man is aware of that imbalance and will do what he can to blunt its effects. One of the ways he can accomplish that is by offering to pay but not insisting, and not taking it personally if the other person declines. This demonstrates that he realises there is more at stake here than just his own fragile ego. That's the kind of man you can have a "true relationship" with.

That's all very nice in your part of the world, but it simply doesn't work like that in some parts of Europe. Here, it's considered polite that the woman should decline the offer (sometimes not even once, but twice) and maybe even grab her wallet, pretending that she's going to pay for herself. A polite man's job is to insist on paying the bill. The "enlightened man" would never get to second date. You're still free to feel superior to the backward and unenlightened masses of the East, though.

[md0]

This talk reminded me of something I witnessed three years ago, first week in the army bootcamp.
A guy, another conscript, prohibited over the phone his girlfriend going to a concert on her own (well, with her female friends from what I remember). When I asked him away (in a really moderate way, I didn't want to come across as a feminist in the army), he said: "I do trust her, but she shouldn't get used to going in places without me now that I'm in the army".
Random, I know. But since Ludwig brought up cultures... yeah, for better or for worse I am inclined to thing of ours as not quite the best around

[Ludwig Whitby]

This talk reminded me of something I witnessed three years ago, first week in the army bootcamp.
A guy, another conscript, prohibited over the phone his girlfriend going to a concert on her own (well, with her female friends from what I remember). When I asked him away (in a really moderate way, I didn't want to come across as a feminist in the army), he said: "I do trust her, but she shouldn't get used to going in places without me now that I'm in the army".
Random, I know. But since Ludwig brought up cultures... yeah, for better or for worse I am inclined to thing of ours as not quite the best around

You're comparing the two cultures solely based on the values of one of them.

Also, these kind of differences in cultures are influenced by the difference of education levels (especially social science education) and standards of living and many other social factors, that were shaped by the very different regional histories.

So, let's drop cultural hierarchies, just as we have dropped racial hierarchy.

[md0]

My thought wasn't nearly that complex. I just remembered something that is common and acceptable over here, but that I can't really say it's neutral. Looks like a bad thing to me. I am not making any other claims here, just sharing a feeling.

[Ludwig Whitby]

My thought wasn't nearly that complex. I just remembered something that is common and acceptable over here, but that I can't really say it's neutral. Looks like a bad thing to me. I am not making any other claims here, just sharing a feeling.

Sorry. I didn't mean to make you feel bad. I know that you have some problems in your life and the last thing I wanted to do was to make you feel bad at one of the few places you feel comfortable in.

[linguoboy]

That's all very nice in your part of the world, but it simply doesn't work like that in some parts of Europe. Here, it's considered polite that the woman should decline the offer (sometimes not even once, but twice) and maybe even grab her wallet, pretending that she's going to pay for herself. A polite man's job is to insist on paying the bill. The "enlightened man" would never get to second date. You're still free to feel superior to the backward and unenlightened masses of the East, though.

What "insisting on" would look like in this context would, of course, vary according to such factors as culture, income level, and so forth. But the basic principle remains the same: respect for another person's autonomy. I personally have a hard time reconciling that with reflexively treating them as a financial dependent but, as in all things, YMMV.

["Enlightened man" may not have been the most felicitous wording, but I think you have to admit it's preferable to the term "real man" others have been bandying about.]

[md0]

My thought wasn't nearly that complex. I just remembered something that is common and acceptable over here, but that I can't really say it's neutral. Looks like a bad thing to me. I am not making any other claims here, just sharing a feeling.

Sorry. I didn't mean to make you feel bad. I know that you have some problems in your life and the last thing I wanted to do was to make you feel bad at one of the few places you feel comfortable in.

No please. It's not that.
I just didn't plan to get involved into this discussion, I only shared what the discussion made me remember.

[Lada]

And I'm pretty sure that percentage of people in your environment who were raped is quite low.

I don't see that you've got any reliable basis for making that kind of assertion.

Incidentally, what do you consider a "low percentage" when it comes to rape? Less than 50%? Les than 10%? Less than 1%?

Make a research, it can be anonymous poll among people you know, but we need not 10 people, but around 100 at least. And then we'll discuss the results, of course if you really want. We can compare that result with any other and decide if it's low or high and to know if I was right or wrong.

Haven't you ever had the experience of performing a kindness for someone and being ignored? How did that make you feel?

If your questions tend to say that anyway a man who pays for a girl will wait something from her in return even pretending to be altruistic, I can say that 75% of men who date think about their girl as about future wife (I've read it somewhere, don't remember where exactly). It means that most people seek for true and long relationship that is not about quick sex and more about being soul mates and basicly you can't find your soul mate if you don't behave according to the norms of the culture you live in (probably some cultures are not bothered about soul mates at all, but I don't speak about them).

How happy do you think a man would be to pay for a woman's meal only to have her ask for it to be wrapped up so she could take it away and eat it with someone else?

We talk about payment for the first dinner, when people are already interested in each other.

An enlightened man is aware of that imbalance and will do what he can to blunt its effects. One of the ways he can accomplish that is by offering to pay but not insisting, and not taking it personally if the other person declines. This demonstrates that he realises there is more at stake here than just his own fragile ego. That's the kind of man you can have a "true relationship" with.

Enlightness can be quite different from culture to culture.
At what age do men become "enlightened" according to you?

But the problem is that these enlightened people are not ideal and not every "enlightened" person is that kind of man someone needs. Usually it's opposite. But that's another story.

[Varislintu]

I just don't understand this "altruism" that only flows from man to woman. I'm sorry if it makes me sound like a feminist harpy, but I don't think anything that ritualistically gender-dependent can be called altruism.

My tablet defines altruism as an act as "the practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the wellbeing of others". I don't think men paying for their dates' dinners is disinterested/selfless in the sense that is meant here (do they pay for all and every woman, or do they choose whom they'd like to date?). The idea of concern for another's wellbeing might have been true in an era when women were not expected to have a lot of spending money or take much initiative in general, but today? What are dates, charity for the hungry ladies?

[mōdgethanc]

I'm so glad I live in a culture which is totally unlike Russia's when it comes to gender norms and dating etiquette; that is, assuming Lada's views are representative of the country as a whole and not just based on her extremely dodgy statistics.

I don't believe the traditional practice of the man in a heterosexual coupling paying for the first date is rooted in altruism. It's more like a transaction: he's asking for her companionship and she's getting something in return. If she decides she doesn't like him, she doesn't have to agree to a second date. Now, contrary to popular belief, I don't believe in the Randian model of altruism as a social construct masking the selfishness that's inherent in all of us. Truly altruistic behaviour surely does exist (it's documented in other animals too) but as Varislintu says, the man isn't paying because he wants to give the woman a free meal. He's paying because the date was (per traditional gender norms here) his idea and if it turns out she doesn't like him, why should she have to pay just for the privilege of finding that out?

[Lietmotiv]

I'm so glad I live in a culture which is totally unlike Russia's when it comes to gender norms and dating etiquette; that is, assuming Lada's views are representative of the country as a whole and not just based on her extremely dodgy statistics.

Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I believe dating etiquette in Russia are closer to my idea regarding a normal date. A man should be a man - and being a man means acting like a man, respect the woman and pay for her if your money aloud you to. An if a woman accept this doesn't mean she has to give something in return. And this also doesn't mean that women in Russia are starving and they need such a "favour" (free meal).
Of course, in other countries there are different etiquettes and I respect them.

I don't believe the traditional practice of the man in a heterosexual coupling paying for the first date is rooted in altruism. It's more like a transaction: he's asking for her companionship and she's getting something in return. If she decides she doesn't like him, she doesn't have to agree to a second date.

What you say is that women who accept men to pay for them are some "moral prostitutes"? I mean the "getting something in return" thing.

[linguoboy]

Make a research, it can be anonymous poll among people you know, but we need not 10 people, but around 100 at least.

If that's what you think passes for scientifically sound research, then it makes your response below much more understandable.

I notice that you never did answer my question regarding what is a "quite low" percentage when it comes to rapes among people of my acquaintance. This way, whatever percentage I might report from such a survey, you can always claim it's low compared to whatever standard you have in mind.

Haven't you ever had the experience of performing a kindness for someone and being ignored? How did that make you feel?

If your questions tend to say that anyway a man who pays for a girl will wait something from her in return even pretending to be altruistic, I can say that 75% of men who date think about their girl as about future wife (I've read it somewhere, don't remember where exactly).

In that case, it's completely meaningless. It's not enough just to give percentages. To know whether a cited statistic has any validity, you have know how it was arrived at, and that's only possible if you have access to the methodology used. For any of us knows, your 75% figure is the result of voluntary participation in an online poll, or some other method which has no scientific worth.

It means that most people seek for true and long relationship that is not about quick sex and more about being soul mates and basicly you can't find your soul mate if you don't behave according to the norms of the culture you live in (probably some cultures are not bothered about soul mates at all, but I don't speak about them).

"Soul mates"--like the notion of the soul itself--is a metaphysical concept that I have no use for.

I will accept that following the norms of the culture you live in is a necessary prerequisite to finding a mate--assuming, that is, that you are looking for someone who obeys these cultural norms. Not everybody is, you know.

How happy do you think a man would be to pay for a woman's meal only to have her ask for it to be wrapped up so she could take it away and eat it with someone else?

We talk about payment for the first dinner, when people are already interested in each other.

An enlightened man is aware of that imbalance and will do what he can to blunt its effects. One of the ways he can accomplish that is by offering to pay but not insisting, and not taking it personally if the other person declines. This demonstrates that he realises there is more at stake here than just his own fragile ego. That's the kind of man you can have a "true relationship" with.

Enlightness can be quite different from culture to culture.
At what age do men become "enlightened" according to you?

At what age? It's not a question of age, it's a question of awareness. A lot of men never become sensitive to women's needs, no matter how long they live.

But the problem is that these enlightened people are not ideal and not every "enlightened" person is that kind of man someone needs. Usually it's opposite. But that's another story.

Okay, now you've lost me.

being a man means acting like a man, respect the woman

I think everyone in this conversation agrees on this point. We just have very different notions of how to demonstrate that respect and, thus, what exactly "acting like a man" means.

Personally, I don't understand the strong need many people have to gender this sort of behaviour. To me, respectful behaviour looks the same, regardless of the sex of the people involved.

[mōdgethanc]

Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I believe dating etiquette in Russia are closer to my idea regarding a normal date. A man should be a man - and being a man means acting like a man, respect the woman and pay for her if your money aloud you to.

I agree with linguoboy that respect is not a gender-specific thing. Aside from that, I don't equate being a man with paying for everything. (Why? It's just a display of power.)

What you say is that women who accept men to pay for them are some "moral prostitutes"? I mean the "getting something in return" thing.

I didn't compare it to prostitution so you're just strawmanning there.

[Ludwig Whitby]

Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I believe dating etiquette in Russia are closer to my idea regarding a normal date. A man should be a man - and being a man means acting like a man, respect the woman and pay for her if your money aloud you to.

I agree with linguoboy that respect is not a gender-specific thing. Aside from that, I don't equate being a man with paying for everything. (Why? It's just a display of power.)

Let's imagine I have pink-coloured glasses on and that I can never take them off. And my friend, called Mickey, always has green-coloured glasses on and can't take them off.

Ludwig: I like pink walls.
Mickey: That's terrible. You have obviously no taste, even though you have painted your room green.
Ludwig: What do you mean green? This is pink.
Mickey: Don't be silly, it's green.
Ludwig: I'm so glad I'm not you. You always make mistakes when it comes to colours.
Mickey: What the hell are you talking about? It's green! It's so obvious!
Ludwig: You need to accept the fact that you're wrong. You're seeing green probably because you've got green-coloured glasses on.
Mickey: No I don't. I've got normal glasses. You're seeing pink because of your pink-coloured glasses. I have no other explanation for your stupidity.
Ludwig: No, my glasses are normal, and you're pretty rude for a guy with green-coloured glasses.
Mickey: You've got it all wrong. The wall is green, not my glasses!