4 Pillars of L.O.V.E.
I was already thinking about Marc Rudov's "4 Pillars of Love" which are Lust, Obligation, Veracity, and Equality.
Then I read Cameron Teone's post about "The Door Test" from the movie, A Bronx Tale.
This article is all about Contribution. How we enhance and enrich the life of our partner. What we bring to the table.
"Sometimes, people tend to think of contribution in financial terms but that’s really a myopic scope of looking at things."
I'll say. To me these two concepts go hand-in-hand: Contribution and L.O.V.E. In fact, the "4 Pillars of Love" is precisely my relationship "Door Test" (as it is designed to be):
"If one pillar is missing or deficient, the structure collapses, and there is no love. If the pillars are not mutual (supported by both man and woman) and sustainable (able to endure for years), there is no love."
Read that again... because this IS the "Door Test"... all four pillars or it's a dealbreaker.
Having met the first woman that I'm considering committing to long term, according to my deliberate Life Design, let's examine the pillars:
Lust -- We've determined that we have a very powerful sexual attraction. There's connection, intimacy, and an incredibly strong sexual desire. We are on the same page about several key things including: The idea that you know a lover is going to be sexually compatible before you have sex, the power of delayed sexual gratification in enhancing intimacy, and the desire to explore what it means to have commitment without sexual exclusivity.
Obligation -- This means several things including a mutual commitment to watch each other’s back, to defend each other, to speak well of each other, to be there for each other in difficult times, to consider each other in all major decisions, to be responsive to each other, to follow through consistently on promises to each other, to challenge and comfort each other, to learn and teach together, and to put each other first above all else and everybody else.
Veracity -- Veracity is truth. We have a commitment to communicate the truth to each other — about our feelings, thoughts, beliefs, preference, intentions, agendas, and actions. And I believe we will sustainably, willingly and frequently remain truthful to each other.
Now, I know I will have no problem contributing all the above to our relationship. I happily make this my life goal. I feel like these 3 pillars are rock solid. But that is not enough.
Unfortunately, we are facing disagreement on the pillar of Equality.
Equality -- "Equality is the antithesis of entitlement. Equality means that neither man nor woman is treated better or regarded more highly than the other, period. With equality, neither partner has rights or privileges superior to those of the other."
I put that one up word for word.
And although it is going to hurt, I am going to have to let this woman go.
You see, she believes in entitlement. She believes that I am supposed to provide for her.
I can't get with that.
Now, I am more than happy to financially contribute to our relationship. I am more than happy to assist in providing for any children we may bring into the world.
But this is not what she's talking about. She's talking about selfish antiquarian ideas like, "You're the man, you're supposed to pay for dinner."
This is not a relationship based on equality, reciprocity, or mutual respect.
Unfortunately, this is not a peer relationship.
Putting entitlement above equality is a very disempowering choice.
Now, this is a very intelligent, highly educated, socially savvy, self-actualizing woman. I think our compatibility is off the charts in term of creativity, sexuality, hopes and dreams, compassion, authenticity, and an alignment of purpose in life. She knows that a lot of the traditional views of dating, relationships, and sexuality are not for us.
It's just this one area that our expectations aren't aligned.
But it is a big one.
I chose to see my mate as an equal. Deferential treatment is old-fashioned nonsense.
I know myself well at an emotional level. I can articulate what I desire in a dream woman. I know my core needs, and equality is one of them.
I want to take on lifetime commitment once, and get it right. I'm not in a rush to get her in bed, so I can just sit back, challenge her, observe her, and determine compatibility.
I know I will never land my dream woman by catering to pedestal-based expectations.
The search for my dream woman is a conscious one. I know what I'll accept and what I won't. Gender based entitlement, I will not accept.
Entering a peer based relationship is a core need. Mutual pursuit is a core need. Mutual contribution to a shared life purpose is a core need. Lustful sex is a core need. Obligation and commitment is a core need. Veracity and truth is a core need.
And equality is a core need.
GoneSavage
Required reading for anyone that believes in relationship equality:
The Mart of Seduction
Then I read Cameron Teone's post about "The Door Test" from the movie, A Bronx Tale.
This article is all about Contribution. How we enhance and enrich the life of our partner. What we bring to the table.
"Sometimes, people tend to think of contribution in financial terms but that’s really a myopic scope of looking at things."
I'll say. To me these two concepts go hand-in-hand: Contribution and L.O.V.E. In fact, the "4 Pillars of Love" is precisely my relationship "Door Test" (as it is designed to be):
"If one pillar is missing or deficient, the structure collapses, and there is no love. If the pillars are not mutual (supported by both man and woman) and sustainable (able to endure for years), there is no love."
Read that again... because this IS the "Door Test"... all four pillars or it's a dealbreaker.
Having met the first woman that I'm considering committing to long term, according to my deliberate Life Design, let's examine the pillars:
Lust -- We've determined that we have a very powerful sexual attraction. There's connection, intimacy, and an incredibly strong sexual desire. We are on the same page about several key things including: The idea that you know a lover is going to be sexually compatible before you have sex, the power of delayed sexual gratification in enhancing intimacy, and the desire to explore what it means to have commitment without sexual exclusivity.
Obligation -- This means several things including a mutual commitment to watch each other’s back, to defend each other, to speak well of each other, to be there for each other in difficult times, to consider each other in all major decisions, to be responsive to each other, to follow through consistently on promises to each other, to challenge and comfort each other, to learn and teach together, and to put each other first above all else and everybody else.
Veracity -- Veracity is truth. We have a commitment to communicate the truth to each other — about our feelings, thoughts, beliefs, preference, intentions, agendas, and actions. And I believe we will sustainably, willingly and frequently remain truthful to each other.
Now, I know I will have no problem contributing all the above to our relationship. I happily make this my life goal. I feel like these 3 pillars are rock solid. But that is not enough.
Unfortunately, we are facing disagreement on the pillar of Equality.
Equality -- "Equality is the antithesis of entitlement. Equality means that neither man nor woman is treated better or regarded more highly than the other, period. With equality, neither partner has rights or privileges superior to those of the other."
I put that one up word for word.
And although it is going to hurt, I am going to have to let this woman go.
You see, she believes in entitlement. She believes that I am supposed to provide for her.
I can't get with that.
Now, I am more than happy to financially contribute to our relationship. I am more than happy to assist in providing for any children we may bring into the world.
But this is not what she's talking about. She's talking about selfish antiquarian ideas like, "You're the man, you're supposed to pay for dinner."
This is not a relationship based on equality, reciprocity, or mutual respect.
Unfortunately, this is not a peer relationship.
Putting entitlement above equality is a very disempowering choice.
Now, this is a very intelligent, highly educated, socially savvy, self-actualizing woman. I think our compatibility is off the charts in term of creativity, sexuality, hopes and dreams, compassion, authenticity, and an alignment of purpose in life. She knows that a lot of the traditional views of dating, relationships, and sexuality are not for us.
It's just this one area that our expectations aren't aligned.
But it is a big one.
I chose to see my mate as an equal. Deferential treatment is old-fashioned nonsense.
I know myself well at an emotional level. I can articulate what I desire in a dream woman. I know my core needs, and equality is one of them.
I want to take on lifetime commitment once, and get it right. I'm not in a rush to get her in bed, so I can just sit back, challenge her, observe her, and determine compatibility.
I know I will never land my dream woman by catering to pedestal-based expectations.
The search for my dream woman is a conscious one. I know what I'll accept and what I won't. Gender based entitlement, I will not accept.
Entering a peer based relationship is a core need. Mutual pursuit is a core need. Mutual contribution to a shared life purpose is a core need. Lustful sex is a core need. Obligation and commitment is a core need. Veracity and truth is a core need.
And equality is a core need.
GoneSavage
Required reading for anyone that believes in relationship equality:
The Mart of Seduction
posted by GoneSavage at Sunday, June 21, 2009
24 Comments:
Lol, that is bullshit :-)
I never asked to be put on a pedestal.
As a woman who brings a LOT to the table for a committed relationship, both financially and otherwise, I simply ask that a man step up.
Equality to me means he faces his sticking points head on (as I am doing with my own) and takes care of them so that he can make an equal contribution.
It means not expecting a woman to pay his way.
And I firmly believe in chivalry. I believe it's important for a man to invest in a woman in those ways to show that there is something behind his lovely-sounding words.
So that -- for example -- when she is pregnant with his child, she knows she can count on him in this regard.
Of course, in a committed relationship, you end up sharing everything.
All the more reason why it's so important to sort these issues out beforehand.
Just an idea:
My general rule of thumb (when in a relationship, not going on a first date or anything) is whoever has the most disposable income at the time pays for the event/date/dinner/movie, unless otherwise stated prior to the date.
It has worked wonderfully thus far, keeping my relationships very balanced.
A sense of entitlement is one of the most unattractive qualities a woman can possess. That, and a lack of humility.
The thought of spending "till death do us part" with someone like that makes my stomach turn.
This is precisely why I prefer dating non-American women.
Two more excellent resources that complement your article:
a book: The War Against Boys
a blog: dapook.blogspot.com
"I believe it's important for a man to invest in a woman in those ways to show that there is something behind his lovely-sounding words"
why not invest in THE RELATIONSHIP instead ?
most women who say they wont RECIPROCATE for a man financial are POOR themselves...they don't have paper... you think Oprah doesn't give paper to her beau?
"And I firmly believe in chivalry"
it should be reciprocal.
I pay you dinner, you cook me dinner, clean the house and do the laundry (or take me to dinner the next time)
I take you out on vacation, you clean the house, cook dinner and do the laundry ( or take me out on vacation).
reciprocity my friend, it does not have to be the same thing but there has to be reciprocity otherwise the women is just a narcisstic parasite in which case if she is pretty if a man will sleep with her and pay his way with her until he is bored with her and will kick her to the curb.
NO one wants to be with a TAKER only, having sex IS NOT giving something in return, if you think your pussy is so precious you CAN KEEP IT!
you gotta bring something to the table.
"As a woman who brings a LOT to the table for a committed relationship, both financially and otherwise, I simply ask that a man step up"
what is it that you bring the table? give us CONCRETE EXAMPLE so far, I only hear pretty words, give more facts.
"My general rule of thumb (when in a relationship, not going on a first date or anything) is whoever has the most disposable income at the time pays for the event/date/dinner/movie, unless otherwise stated prior to the date."
would you date a man long term who makes less then you then ? if not , then your argument is invalid because it is onesided.
I have no problem paying for a women but she has to reciprocate and give something in return BESIDES SEX
Great feedback guys. Some reminders:
Civility trumps chivalry.
Equality trumps entitlement.
You can't expect deferential treatment and true respect at the same time.
Respect & Equality. This is how marriages are built to last.
Equality is nonngegotiable.
Equality and financial abundance are not mutually exclusive by any means.
Equality and masculine-feminine polarity are not mutually exclusive.
Polarity is what creates sexual attraction. I talked about this in LUST.
Equality is what creates harmony and long term commitment -- based on mutual understanding, reciprocity, and respect.
How can you respect someone whom you do not view as an equal, as a peer?
Similarly, I would never expect her to be my 'provider.'
The whole idea of equalitiy is mutual contribution, mutual 'stepping up,' and mutual respect.
This is how relationships remain win-win and with continuity and logevity.
Even if compatibility is rock-solid for 3 out of 4 of these pillars, I cannot 'settle' for a 75% perfect woman.
It would be a shame if said woman didn't have an open mind and attempt to sync up on this concept of equality.
I know that I will live a life of financial abundance.
I know I will provide for my child.
I will get this handled with or without 75% woman's support, trust, and assistance.
This is me being authentic.
My fundamental need for equality -- no, any relationship's fundamental need for equality -- is exactly what ensures you that I am being authentic.
Savage out.
A quick explanation behind my mindset:
I don't care for social-sexual discrimination. I like equality in social interactions. If I expect my man to pay for everything, I'm expecting special treatment because of my sex, which can backfire like hell. I treat my guys like my equals because we are, and take into consideration our respective financial situations. To expect special treatment is to ask to be viewed as not equal to my partner.
So, to answer your question, would I date a man long-term if I was the one financially better off (and knew I would continue to be so, meaning, by my own code of behavior, pay for everything)?
Yes, I would. I have, in the past, happily entered into relationships knowing such was the case, and if I end up in another one, I will be perfectly content paying for everything, save for those special occasions where he feels the need to treat me, which I would not allow him to do too often because then I would feel like I was draining him when he should not be drained.
I've played this one both ways. It has always been the men who insisted on paying for my meals who ended up treating me the best throughout a relationship. And by "best" I don't mean on a pedestal. I mean respectful of me as a person with intentions of a meaningful connection.
The guys who touted equality at the very beginning of a courtship turned out to be interested in spending as little money on me as possible...because they were spreading their resources around as widely as possible.
Maybe it is a cultural throwback that isn't economically necessary anymore, but it still has value as a way of showing value.
I’m a tag along from Rori’s site. I’ve been interested in posting there but given the recent climate, I’ve decided to refrain. Instead I’ve been reading Mercedes and Erika’s blogs and recently found this site through Erika’s. So to my comment…
Jason, I’m intrigued by your view of equality versus entitlement in a relationship. You shared an example of entitlement as "You're the man, you're supposed to pay for dinner." What if I said “I feel cared for/ special/ chosen/ turned on when a man pays for dinner, and in return, we’ll have fun and laugh and etc.”, would that make it equal? I agree that if I sat like a bump on a log during dinner and contributed nothing to the date and the man paid, then yes, that would feel like entitlement to me.
What would be equal to you in that situation? Isn’t the expectation that “you pay this time, I pay next time”, entitlement on the man’s part? Why must there be an expectation that a woman pay you back with something more than her company, her laughter, her happiness, her sensuality? It’s not about the money or who pays. For me, it’s about knowing my man is pursuing me. How he deems it necessary to show me that is completely up to him and his own particular style. And I “pay” him back in my own way, not necessarily with money (and I don’t mean sex either).
Equality does not mean that I give EXACTLY what you give. It means that the woman gives what she has and so does the man. In the long run, those things balance out and are “equal”. So you pay for some meals and you pursue the woman. Maybe what you get back is so much more…or maybe it’s less. You simply don’t know and expecting back equal amounts of what you give IS entitlement.
If I feel adored and cared for when my man pursues me and is giving to me, and I reciprocate back in DIFFERENT ways, isn’t that equality?
Does that resonate at all, or have I completely missed the mark?
Simply Shannon
I like Aldonza's way of putting it. It's not that I expect a man to pay for my meals in order to get the pleasure of being with me--it's that I will choose the man who takes pleasure in treating me well over the man who doesn't. In return, I'm happy to cook you dinner and iron your shirts and keep our home beautiful bla bla bla.
Entitlement is very unattractive when men display it, too. I used to see this a lot when men who were significantly older than me would message me on dating sites. "I'm old and overweight and don't take care of myself at all, but since I'm a man, I deserve to be with someone younger and more attractive than I am; women my age just aren't good enough for me." I run the other way as fast as I can.
I hope both Jason and Erika find who they're looking for. You both have incredibly high standards, and I find it inspiring, and I want to see them met.
"Entitlement is very unattractive when men display it, too. I used to see this a lot when men who were significantly older than me would message me on dating sites. "I'm old and overweight and don't take care of myself at all, but since I'm a man, I deserve to be with someone younger and more attractive than I am; women my age just aren't good enough for me." I run the other way as fast as I can."
I can't stand that, either.
I was going to say that that attitude is one that a lot of PUA's have, but I've also noticed it coming from guys who aren't getting anywhere with women - or the women they want - but continue to ignore the lovely young women around them, because they aren't considered an 8 or a 10. If a woman has that kind of attitude, there seems to be a need to take her down a peg, for thinking she's "all that."
This article totally is under my skin. The WHOLE POINT of developing a heterosexual relationship is to build a family. Women give birth and raise kids. That's what we bring to the table. We offer love, warmth and radiance to a man. That's what we offer. So that's why I don't understand why you want a woman at all if you don't even acknowledge that there is a difference between genders.
By the way, a PEER is "someone who has EQUAL standing with another as in rank or class."
This has nothing to do with gender differences or sexual polarity.
I sorta feel like if a man and woman are not planning on having kids then the equality format would probably work out well as long as they didn't focus on keeping score too much.
However, I'm sorta curious as how it would work during pregnacy since the man could not carry 1/2 the kid.
In the tradditional relationship. Men usually pay for dinners and dates while women tend to pay for birth control (the pill which is about $30 a month-- the sponge is about $17 for 3 sponges condoms are about a $1 each), gynocology visits (depend if you have insurance), make up, beauty care, clothes (cost varies) in order to attract a man or to have good reproductive health.
--------------
However a new type of relationship seems to be emerging. Men are starting to pay more on making themselves look good by getting wax jobs and are spending money on good clothes and manicures. However, they still don't pay as much money as women do on beauty care. However, more and more men these days are wearing makeup so that may change in the future.
So I guess this type of relationship could work well if neither the man or the woman wears make up but both do the same level of beauty care (waxing), they split birth control/reproductive cost, and they both do not have childern/ adopt.
------------
Currently I do not want childern and I don't wear makeup and the men I have dated usually are just as strong as I am. However, I usally end up being the one paying for most of the dates since I'm in college and I'm usually the only one with a car and kitchen full of food. However, they guys I'm dating usually make up for it by helping me to clean my house. They also make good therapist for when I have my panic attacks.
If I do have kids, I want the guy to be the one who stays home- I've tried babysitting and I like working in an office much better- kids are too stressful for me to handle.
I sorta believe that marriage and commentment is just an illusion of safety this days. Its true that they give protection, but often not as much as I once thought. I only feel safe when I can depend on myself because that is the only person I can depend on 90% of they time (I do mess up sometimes...ok a lot). I like backups and plans Bs. And I do like have a net work of many people to support me.
Then again I haven't had a relationship last more than 1/2 a year so............. I sorta suck at love.
Interesting, I have now read about this saga on three different blogs. If it is a non-negotiable for Erika to date a guy that makes a lot of money and spends it on her, she should not have started dating you in the first place. There are women in the world who care about other things. To date you and then complain that you are not spending money on her, and then to post on her blog about someone else taking her out to a fancy restaurant. The whole situation is spiteful and passive aggressive. Sorry you had to experience that, dude. At least you figured it out quickly.
Equality = balance.
As already stated, it has nothing to do with an eye for an eye. When you go to a store, you don't hand the cashier money, only to have them hand you back the same amount. You received a meal, they received your money. You exchange one thing for another, that is why men are women and different, they each bring equal but opposite qualities, to create a whole. They therefore balance. If everything was the same, and everyone brought the same thing to the table, the balance falls off. Not to mention how boring it would be. No surprise, no mystery, just all one taste.
To put it bluntly, if you sleep with the opposite sex, he brings a dick, she brings a pussy.
As far as those that state a relationship is about making a family, and having kids, I disagree. You are forgetting about the population of people who's children have grown, they are too old to have more, and enter into a relationship. A family can consist of two.
You wrote another article about cutting off all ties when a relationship ends, otherwise you are giving them power, and holding on to attachment. I don't know if you and Erika have gotten to the point of no more contact, but if you think you have, you are sadly in denial. The fact that you each may, or may not be talking directly to each other, is a fallacy, if that is the case. You obviously both still have a lot to say to one another, therefore using blogs as your voice, and contact. Not to mention support group.
Relationships require compromise in those times when you both disagree, so that each of you can reach a win/win, as opposed to win/lose or lose/lose. If neither of you are unable or unwilling to do that, then I suppose you don't belong together. Sleep and make a home and bed with your pride and stubbornness. A disagreement is no reason to turn your backs on one another, but an opportunity for change, and come out on the other side better.
I am also a disciple of Rori’s and I have been learning a lot. I think everyone missed the concept in this blog post that there is a difference between “dating” and “relationship”. In dating, the one who asks the other out should pay- period. Since a Rori disciple would never ask a man out, it follows that she would not pay. This woman would be out living her life, having fun, doing whatever activity makes her feel good and the man comes up to her and asks her out; now it is up to him to impress her. In nature, this is the same as the mating dance performed by a male bird or the violent fight enacted by stallions IN ORDER TO WIN THE FEMALE. Equality does not come into it. Where is equality in a sales pitch? However, in a relationship, equality is not negotiable. If my husband would not mow the lawn or trim the shrubs, I’d damn well not wash his dirty clothes. If he got laid off, I would work overtime to make up the difference until he is employed, but he had better be willing to do the same if I am out of work or on maternity leave. In other words, equality begins when a man has convinced the woman of his choice that he is her equal.
Jason Miller here. You might know me from commenting on Rori's blog. I concur with Karen.
When I'm out on a date with a woman I'm very interested in, I demonstrate my interest by paying. Why? Because it works. It generates all the right feelings during the courting process.
I also DO NOT spend a huge amount of money on those first dates because I need to get to know a woman before I want spend that much. Dating can get very expensive quickly if you don't respect your budget and stick to it. A sensible woman understands that also.
Now, once an exclusive relationship starts, then I think you need to negotiate expenses as a couple. I think at that point the couple gets to design what works for them. You can prorate based on income. You can have the guy pay when you're out and the woman make up another expense if you're living together. There are many ways to make both people happy and maintain good balance and chemistry.
My two cents...
Karen,
You hit the nail on the head. I am talking about relationships and not 'dating.' I am talking about cohabitation, cocreation, and sharing purpose in life.
Here's the thing. I am not making a sales pitch. I am not selling myself. I am not for sell. And neither are you.
Compatibility, sexual polarity, and reciprocal contribution have nothing to do with wining & dining.
"I assert that women go to bed with men for two reasons: raw attraction and wining/dining obligation. Because most women demand to be wined & dined, they will continue to be sexually unfulfilled, fake their orgasms, and flirt with and fantasize about other men. Therein lies the paradox: wining & dining, traditionally tantamount to romance, predetermines that women will end up with men to whom they are not wildly attracted. And, consequently, men will lose two-fold: in the wallet and in the bed." - Marc Rudov
Now, in the context of a RELATIONSHIP (in my case, one that will be founded on raw attraction, not wining & dining), there becomes a sense of obligation as well.
There is an obligation to defend each other, to speak well of each other, to be there for each other in difficult times, to consider each other in all major decisions, to be responsive to each other, to follow through consistently on promises to each other, to challenge and comfort each other, to learn and teach together, and to put each other first above all else and everybody else.
Don't forget the original post. Equality - which everyone is hung up on - is one of 4 unique pillars in addition to Lust (raw sexual attraction), Obligation (explained above), and Veracity (truth and honesty).
In a RELATIONSHIP / MARRIAGE all four of the pillars are non-negotiable. Equality is demonstrated as reciprocal contribution, not wining and dining. You gave some good examples:
"If my husband would not mow the lawn or trim the shrubs, I’d damn well not wash his dirty clothes."
"If he got laid off, I would work overtime to make up the difference until he is employed, but he had better be willing to do the same if I am out of work or on maternity leave."
Jason M,
Thanks for coming over to this blog as well. I find it hard to believe that certain women with massive trust issues with men actually thought that I was writing your comments in addition to my own.
I guess I have nothing better to do in life, and I am now in fact responding to myself. *rolls eyes*
I like your comment here. Especially this:
"You can prorate based on income. You can have the guy pay when you're out and the woman make up another expense if you're living together."
The only thing I would caution you against is wining & dining her and then bringing up these ideas of equality only in the context of a relationship.
At that point you've already made a poor mate choice. You have already found someone who is used to you as the financer. She has certain expectations already based on your 'dating' behavior.
I encourage you to see what is fundamentally wrong with this statement:
"I demonstrate my interest by paying."
I cringed when I read it.
Can you think of no other way to demonstrate your interest?
Would you perhaps be attracting different women (and perhaps better relationships) if you found a different way to demonstrate your interest?
Are you not concerned with how she demonstrates her interest for you?
Imagine a woman JOYFULLY opening her wallet to demonstrate her interest by paying for your date... how would you feel?
Really think about it.
Anonymous who wrote:
"To date you and then complain that you are not spending money on her, and then to post on her blog about someone else taking her out to a fancy restaurant. The whole situation is spiteful and passive aggressive. Sorry you had to experience that, dude. At least you figured it out quickly."
THANK YOU. AMEN.
Jason Savage
Jason S: You asked Jason Miller to answer the question “Can you think of no other way to demonstrate your interest?” I believe Jason M.’s comments were about dating and not a long term relationship. (If I’m misquoting you Jason M., forgive me please.) How do YOU demonstrate interest while dating, aside from paying for dinner, etc.? I’m really curious to hear your response.
I agree with the statement that “equality” in a RELATIONSHIP is reciprocal contribution. In a relationship, you negotiate for the things you want or don’t want. In my relationships, I feel desirable and cherished when a man provides for me. Maybe that means he opens his wallet or mows the lawn or works hard. As long as he is providing for me in whatever way he can. And my reciprocal contribution would be to immediately express appreciation for what he has provided and to trust him because I know he’ll provide for me. It might also mean that I provide funds to our bank account to pay for our bills or clean the house and do his laundry or whatever else that we negotiate. There are so many shades of gray here.
In this case you and Erika were unable to negotiate something that worked for both of you, i.e. something that felt like “equality”. It wasn’t authentic for Erika to say okay to something she didn’t agree to (so she didn’t) and you didn’t cherish her feelings enough to negotiate with her further. That doesn’t make either of you right or wrong.
I feel a mixture of annoyance and amusement.
The idea of Jason as a "victim" in this situation amuses me since he is the one who took this dialogue public by posting here and via Rori. Obviously he invited the discussion, and he already knew my views about it, because we had been talking about it privately.
Passive-aggressive. Right. There's nothing passive about my approach, I'm telling everyone exactly how I feel about this issue.
Jason and I "dating." We met one time. Then we started talking about possibilities. It quickly became clear that our values around the issue of money are not aligned. Given that we only get to have one life partner, and that money is as Rori says one of the biggest causes of strife in relationships, you can bet I'm going to make sure I'm compatible with a guy on this issue before signing up for a long-term commitment. I'm glad we figured this out sooner rather than later, and before we had sex, so there's far less emotional entanglement.
Also, I would never marry a guy who called me his "75% woman." To me, that really says it all.
As for writing each other off, that's not my approach to relationships. If Jason no longer wants to talk to me, that's his prerogative, but I don't really see the point in doing something so drastic in this situation.
Jason, Thanks for understanding me. Yes, lust is very important because, face it, if I had sex with a man because I felt obligated to pay him back for the cost of the date, wouldn’t I be pretty much prostituting myself? The sales pitch comment makes sense because aren’t we always selling ourselves- to potential friends, to in-laws, to employers, etc.? The most significant part of Rori’s method is the idea that for a woman to be successful at dating (or life in general), she must be absolutely authentic. To offer up exactly who she is, no games, no fronting, no toilet paper in the bra, no guessing how much money the man makes; so that she can relax and just enjoy dating. That way, later on, if a relationship develops, her man will not discover deal-breakers about her that she hid during the dating process. And Jason M, thank you for your input. S Shannon, yes, there are other ways to make a good impression than spending money you can’t afford. Level 2 listening (paying attention to her instead of scoping out your next conquest), offering to get the door or her chair (if you aren’t sure she’s into chivalry), giving her a sincere compliment, picking up a single flower (less than 2 bucks- no roses) that compliments what she’s wearing, offering to pick her up at the door of the restaurant after the date so she doesn’t have to negotiate a parking lot in heels… I personally prefer something more lively than being “wined & dined” so my most memorable dates have been things like local talent rock concerts ($20.), Rocky Horror Picture Show audience participation ($15.), riding bikes on a trail (free?), window-shopping the local equivalent of Chinatown ($20. max) and going swimming/picnicking at the local public lake ($5. parking fee- $15. food). If you do a little research about what gets a woman’s attention, you can plan a date that will be pleasure for both of you. The best thing anyone, male or female can do on a date is to try and get to know the person they are out with and that can’t be done if you are always in a laboratory setting (upscale restaurant).
Jason, if you think that your "hotness" is equal to mine, you are wrong. I do not desire men purely for sex. *I* represent sex, and a man represents LOVE to me. Taking care of me is showing me love - whether it's out on a date, or around the house - I appreciate gestures that prove to me that a guy is giving me love in exchange for sex. That is the sales pitch. I'm "selling" sex, the guy is "selling" love. But, Jason, you think you are selling sex. Hahahaha!
Post a Comment
<< Home