You shouldn't take girls to dinner for a first date. You should insist on paying for things. Basic stuff...

In the end they pay one way or another.

I don't think she was talking about only first dates, more giving of a rough outline of things she likes.

Cooking at someone's house is actually a great idea for like a 2nd or 3rd date if the girl likes you enough to agree. Movies or Dinner I'd probably only ever agree to after we've already had sex. Working out together, yah more of an "already dating" thing.

It's so easy just to do fun, cheap stuff for 1st or 2nd dates, then you don't even have to worry about whether you're always paying for Dinner and feeling like girls are taking advantage. I haven't had a 1st or 2nd date that didn't involve some combo of going out for drinks, going to a park, getting ice cream, coffee, etc. All are quick dates, and you can choose to abort early if the date sucks, or continue the date and find a nearby venue to bounce to to keep things going.

Because a marriage based on modern values has literally no benefits for the man.

Who said anything about marriage?

Disagree with most of this. Cooking for them on a second date Doing dinner on a 2nd date is completely standard, and refusing to go for dinner in the first couple of dates, would signal to most girls that you are not that serious about them.

Well there's nothing wrong with dating all kinds of girls when you are young, but at the same time you also want to behave in a way that keeps the keepers around if you're lucky enough to get near one.

Re: cooking it depends. If it's at your place then it might be a bit quick - can you not barbecue anywhere near where you are? There is the advantage though that you get to show off what you can do in the kitchen whereas in a restaurant the only connection to you is that you paid for someone else to cook for her.

When I was first teaching English abroad I used to invite female colleagues over for lunch before work (we taught afternoons and evenings), which didn't have the pressure a normal date taking place 10 metres from my bed would have because in any case we were going to work after lunch. Maybe it would be similar for people at university who have lectures in the afternoon or who are in some kind of a shared kitchen with other people around in the building.

Just to keep it balanced ...and confusing...i like almost none of those things.

Especially guys who are good dancers. They creep me out.

Stay out of my kitchen. Picnics aren't all that comfortable or great; I'd prefer to sit at a table. Movie theaters are over-priced and not as comfortable as my living room. Concerts are loud and awkward with someone you don't know well. I dont really want to see you work out, and I certainly wouldn't want you to see me...feels a little "How the sausage is made"

So yeah...haters gonna hate, and this whole formulaic approach to dating that some of the men itt are trying to lock down is kinda silly.


False.
It has less benefits for man, but is still an overall net gain.

Quick example: Man takes kids out. "Oh you're babysitting. You're so amazing for giving your wife time off!!"


Marriage is usually a loss for women, not men.

Men who are married live longer, have better health, earn more, have better sex, and are happier than men who are not married. While the research that finds that marriage benefits men more than women may be flawed, it's complete red-pill idiocy to claim that marriage had literally no benefits for the man.

If only we could go back to the good old days when men had the last words and women were essentially property. Alas.

I would imagine that there's a problem with underdetermination here. I'm happy to accept without citation that those are true, but it's probably because people who are unable to attract a partner are also unsuccessful in the ways you describe above. In that sense, it's not that there is necessarily any benefit to marriage, but that successful people are more likely to be married.

Here are results from the NLSY79 Cohort, a longitudinal project that follows the lives of a sample of 9,964 American youth born between 1957-64. For childless men, the cohabitation premium is 5.4 percent and the marriage premium is 7.3 percent. Men’s wages when divorced are not statistically significantly different from when they are single.



http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full...03122412469204

Agree with this, but I think there is an important qualifier.

I haven't read the studies that you're referring to but I assume if you look at the ones that stay married, it's probably all true. But just because you get married, doesn't mean you stay married. Going through a divorce ranges from inconvenient to absolutely horrible. You have to average in those outcomes into your "getting married is beneficial" calculus.

The family Court system tells a very different story.

Not to mention that men who marry are more likely to have money and high social status compared to non married men.

Because being a single mother is soooo friggin' awesome and easy.

Poor men, having to contribute equitably to their child's financial resources is rough.

In b4 some variety of

"My desire to see my kids is more important than stability in living arrangements for the child."

"I moved out when the going got rough, leaving kids with Mom and don't understand that I crowned her primary parent"

"She did most of the childcare, Drs appts, housework...but now I DEMAND half access"

And

"The legal system, predominately created by men, is the fault of all mothers. THEY SHOULD PAY FOR IT."

O boy we got off topic.

My bad...i can't stand MRA arguments about custody. They make me stabby.

I'll rein it in.

Maybe I overstated my position. By "not modern values" I just mean at least some kind of differentiation of expected roles - so something more like my parents' generation born in the 1950s had when they got married in the 70s, rather than my grandparents generation born in the 1910s/1920s who got married in the 1940s.

As well as the other objections to gregorio's survey the cohort it studies is people currently aged 63-70 so it's my parents' generation not young people now splitting the bill 50-50.

It's a patriarchy!

As a married man, I would also like to point out that we have significantly higher IQs, live in mansions, drive Bentleys, and have enormous penises. It's science.

I would tend to agree with the statement that married men are generally happier. This coming from a single dude never been married and most of my friends are married.

Im not sure about the significantly higher IQ and enormous penis part.

I don't have any problem with people who want to structure their relationship around traditional gender roles - as long as that's what both people want, have at it. Let the two (or more) people doing the relationship decide what they want it to look like.