Giving women gifts is desperate, but stopping is entitled?

Post Reply New Topic

I see this happening a lot.

Women getting turned off by nice guys sending them gifts. But when the women gets turned off and the guy STOPS giving them free gifts women are like "Nice Guys are not so nice, they don't give me free stuff if I don't put out!" So in other words "Nice Guys" are as*holes for giving gifts to a woman who doesn't want sex, but they are also as*holes for NOT giving gifts to a woman who doesn't want sex.

A woman might say "you should give me gifts and not expect anything in return." How would you know if the man is expecting sex or not unless he says that he is? Then a woman might say "well because I know the man is still attracted to me." Well if you know the man is still attracted to you, why do you still expect him to give you gifts?

I would theorize that in this kind of case there was no attraction on part of the woman towards the man to begin with therefore being given things is a net gain scenario. I think it's similar to sales tactics, even if it's little or no interest we would all be happy to receive a free sample but will quickly resent the salesman if they then try to pressure us into buying the product. It would feel as though they are trying to guilt/shame or basically just manipulate us into buying the product, which as we all know is the end goal and only thing they really ever cared about. Making the sale.

I think girls see it similarly if an unattractive guy gives gifts when it's clear that the idea is to try to form a relationship with her.


I would not give any gifts without having seen clear indicators of interest as I know that gifts alone cannot create attraction where previously there was none. There are zero reasons for me to give a gift specifically for the purpose of potentially forming a relationship when there is either nothing at all to indicate that she has interest in me or the signals she gives are actively conveying disinterest. If that is in fact exactly what was required to me then I am doubtful that the potential relationship would be of real meaning, it shouldn't simply be gifts that creates attraction it should be our own personal qualities and ability to form a genuine connection with them. They can help but I really think shouldn't be the only reason for the woman to participate in the relationship.

I think that just being called simply "nice" means there aren't other positive qualities coming to mind for them. It's such a generic term in my mind that it implies that they do not perceive any positive qualities save for that the man isn't immediately identified as hostile or threatening. Which is a basic thing to be always expected from everyone we have to interact with. To me it implies there is an absence of attractive qualities in the man whether it's a real absense or simply perceived by the woman.

I get that, it's that I wish women didn't call me a misogynist for ignoring them after being rejected. If a girl really wants to keep a guy as just a friend, she should at the very least be nice to be around. If she is not nice or fun to be with, I don't owe her anything.

I always have a problem with people saying "no one owes you for being nice" because it's BS. The definition of "owe" literally means someone did something for you that haven't reciprocated for. How would they like it if they went to a restaurant to buy food, and the waiter never gives them food, and they ask for their money back and the waiter says "it's wrong to pay money and expect anything in return." If she can't offer sex, or a relationship she has to offer something else! Otherwise, goodbye and good riddance.

Feminists view men in a more narrow way. They view "beta males"(A concept I feel is BS) doing this as part of the oppression of the patriarchy and that as a low value male(in their eyes) you are being misogynist for believing a relationship with them is possible. "Beta Male" is nothing other than a dehumanizing label. It is seen like a dog stealing a 5 star dinner.

I'm changing my own view somewhat sometimes criticism from others on here can be good as it gets me to reevaluate beliefs I had picked up from toxic people. I'm trying to view it as myopia on their part to judge me as a zero value male which is rationally false as I do have positive qualities it would be false to say that I only possess negative qualities. They're just not open minded about people it's basically like they have all or nothing thinking about men. To them either they see a man as attractive and great or else they are trash which is flawed thinking as virtually no one is absolutely all good or absolutely all bad. It becomes poisonous when we start accepting and internalizing this toxic mindset because it disregards who we are as people and disregards the potential for growth.

Now I consider it to be a sort of "flat earth" view on people.

I suppose it depends on in what manner and situation you are ignoring her. Did she reject you and you ignore her when you two cross paths in person and she greets you? You are not obliged to acknowledge her however by basic social etiquette it would be rude not to acknowledge her and return the greeting. If she is texting you and trying to be friends, I would just make it clear that you are not interested. If civility doesn't work then I would tell her flat out to leave you alone but you alone.

As for your comparison of relationships and entitlements to restaurants, they are not equivalents because a restaurant, by definitation, is a place where people exchange money for food that is prepared for them and the customer and restaurant owner both know that. There is a mutually agreed upon business arrangments. The same is true of brothels. Those are both business relationships.

Social relationships are different. There is not a predefined "contract" that states the terms of transactions. There is, however, the social concept of reciprocity, but the terms of this are undefined or, at best, loosely defined, legally non binding, and operate on something more akin to an honor system.

That being said, it would be wrong of you to take a woman out to lunch with idea that it entitles you to sex or a relationship, as it would be wrong of her to expect you to buy her a brand new Mercedes because she had sex with you. This would be wrong in a formal business transaction because the other party is not aware of terms you expect to impose on them and only become aware after the fact, and it is wrong socially because under the idea of social reciprocity, the exchanges should be of roughly equal value according to the underlying time and resource commitment. While value can be subjective, most people would probably agree that a sex and a meal or sex and a car, in modern western society, are not equal exchanges. Of course there are some women who would have sex for a meal but they are typically prostitues, some men who would buy a woman a Mercedes in exchange for sex, but they are typically old rich men, and some women who would have sex in exchange for a Mercedes, but they are also typically prostitues, and these are often more akin to business exchanges as the terms are know to both parties before hand.

When someone takes me out for a meal, I reciprocate in kind. Meaning" next time, I will pay for the meal if they don't object.

Concerning women who tell you not to give them gifts and get mad when you stop or women who tell you leave them alone and get mad when you do, no one needs people like them in their life.

What about women who expect a free meal or activity in exchange for a date?

I’ve had women get upset cause i want to go to the park for a date. So they selling their time for free food or activity, when it should be both of us sharing our time to get to know each other and not about what one can get for their time.

Lady at work was gloating about how she was going on dates with a guy she has no interest in but he pays for dinner and activities. I was appalled but the women she was telling didn't seem to be. So I guess to her and them it’s fine to lead men on if they get something out of it. I can’t help but just feel sorry for the guy who likes her and probably thinks it’s going somewhere since he’s getting multiple dates with her.

If a person invites another person out somewhere, who is to pay often depends on the context and the phrasing of the invitation. Example...

"Would you go on a date with me?" Implication is asker pays.

"Do you want to go get some dinner/go see a movie?"
Both should be prepared to pay for themselves, but it's not unusual for the asker to pay for both in some situations.

"Do you want to go on a tour of Europe/to an expensive theme park with me?"
Payment should be discussed before hand.

It's true that western tradition holds that when a man asks a woman out on a date or what he hopes to be a date, he expects to pay and she expects him to pay because of it. You might find it upsetting that this idea exists but you will likely not get men to stop doing it because he is trying to woo her or worries that letting her pay will makw him look bad as a man. This is just the truth of our society whether we agree with it or not.

As for her, if she knows a man is attempting to woo her and she has no interest in him, she should decline the invitation.



What your coworker is doing is unethical.

If she smiles at me when I see her, it probably means that she actually DOES want me as a friend, so I probably would talk to her if I see her.

Then there is the SJW kind of "friend" who spends all her time talking trash about all the men she put in her "friendzone" with her SJW friends.



According to this video, a man has to do housework for a woman just because she is his "friend".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svP6hkxfauE&t=10s

There are all sorts of strange claims and people with strange ideas in the world.

This sort of thing happens in S & M (sadomasochistic) types of situations.

People in these sorts of situations frequently "role play."

I resoundingly agree very strongly. This kind of stuff is one of the fastest ways to kill any attraction I had for a woman. What is your opinion about dates to the park and such? I would prefer a date like that over something like a movie where generally people never talk during it. Or fancy dinner as I feel like that should be later, I am glad to do so if I know that the woman is there to spend time with me not just for free meal. The scary thing is they're going to know that Aspergers guys are going to be pretty blind about this kind of thing, like we won't be able to discern if they have real feelings for us or not from subtle cues. It would likely take objective indicators making things obvious, like going on expensive date and maybe they just leave before the bill shows up without a goodbye or thank you or anything. I feel like that's all I've really got in order to figure this kind of thing out, that I'd probably have been taken advantage of if afterwards there's no goodbyes, thank yous or any kind of closing discussion.

How much money should be spent or should not be spent on like a first date? I want to be casual about things for a good while cause I struggle with reading people so it's going to make me really susceptible to getting taken advantage of. I feel like I'll be blind to it till I'd get ditched a couple hundred bucks later. I feel like I'd need to have ways to "test" people but I don't really know how.

Is it cool or not cool if first date is to a restaurant and the woman orders a lot of expensive things? My one friend said a first date he had was a $150 night, he got something fairly cheap(like $30-40 for the dish with 1 drink, it was a fancy restaurant) but she got expensive main course like $60 for probably the most expensive or one of the most expensive dishes on the menu. Plus samples of stuff plus a lot of drinks. Largely what ran up the bill was she ordered a couple of hors d'oeuvre trays that were like $15-20 each. Makes me feel nervous about getting taken advantage of because this guy is definitely NT he's like an opposite of Aspergers but really laid back so we got along pretty good. He's really smart with people and is going into psychology I think, yet I feel like he got taken advantage of there.



Wow this is like the worst kind of red flag. I'm out so fast if they want to wash their floors for the privilege of getting to know them. SJW/extreme feminist are probably some of the worst potential GFs for me because I believe in gender equality not gender supremacy.


Can you elaborate about this? I've heard the term a few times mostly cause of those 50 shades movies but don't totally understand. Maybe I am missing the mark on this but it sounds to me like abuse. Is this a commonplace thing?

It's not abuse if both people consent.

People role play in sex all the time. A guy might be a caveman, a woman might be the one who gets pulled by the hair by the caveman. Stupid stuff.

Or a woman might be a mommy, and the guy a little boy who is "mommy's" son. Mommy spanks the "little boy" for "being bad."

People get sexually turned on by either being a "dominant" type, or being a "submissive" type.

I don't indulge in this stuff, by the way. Not my thing.

I'm a nerd about psychology I'd say it might be my special interest. I am fascinated and sometimes disturbed by the human mind. My thing is even if this is consensual I think there's still potential for psychological damage similar to abuse. In some ways it's a very similar situation to abuse so I have to think that the results could be similar like causing trauma.

While being the dominator guy might be useful for learning about the woman I feel it isn't ethically sound as I feel like it's going to cause real trauma for the woman. The brain can't tell the difference between "Role playing" and real traumatic situations. For instance, when treating PTSD and similar, "role playing" sort of exercises might be used to help with it.

Like let's say you got PTSD from a car accident, many of those people get severe anxiety or panic attacks just from sitting in the driver's seat afterwards. So what they do is slowly expose them to the stressor so body can get used to it. Like you'd go sit in the driver's seat once a day for a minute then rate your anxiety. Once it's 5 or less after a minute, try staying longer. Once you can stay calm sitting in car for 10 minutes, they try having you turn on the ignition and do the same but with the car running. Afterwards you might backup a few feet then return to park, then you might go in a circle in the parking lot. Then maybe later drive around the block. This process can take a month or even a few months. Severe PTSD can take years or lifetime to manage. The brain suffers the same reaction even though just sitting in the car presents no real danger, it's just things that the brain associated with the traumatic event.

What are your thoughts about this?

I feel you are right in many ways. There is potential for trauma---for people of all genders. And, many times, the "dominator/dominatrix might not know when to "stop," and crosses the line.

But...if both parties consent, and are adults, then nothing can be done about it.

I suppose that education in this aspect of things could very well be useful.

Sorry I really don’t see it as any different then society use to feel thst paying for dinner meant men get sex after. It’s only that feminists have worked to make it not ok and have kept the whole men pays. How about this. Guy ask you out on a date, you accept which means you want to go on the date so you pay for yourself. The date is mutual. Unless you don’t like the guy in which case why would you go on a date?

A date is mutual shared between both people. Who asks first shouldn’t matter. Until then I’ll keep doing free dates but you avoided my question.

Do you think it’s ok for women to expect free meal or activity for echange of a date?


Atleast we agree on what she doing is wrong.