this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2025
657 points (95.9% liked)
Greentext
7428 readers
288 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What he says boils down to "I was eavesdropping your conversation, and I assume you're desperate. You might as well lower your standards — date someone random you have no connections with, like me." It's bad; not bad enough to deserve that rude reply, but still bad.
A better approach would be to try to pick up a woman who's alone, offer her a drink*, chitchat a bit, and then ask her for a date. With no references to what she said to other people. Creating some connection between him and her, before he asks her out.
*always ask the bar workers to bring it. Don't bring it yourself.
A bit of a tangent, but I really hate this. Not meaning to call you out, this is a really common recommendation for an icebreaker and it's also reinforced by popular media and the like, but it always feels to me like the implication is that if a man wants to approach a woman, they must buy something for them as part of that process. Like it's a transaction fee to be given a chance.
i date actively.
most women expect you to pay your way into their company. in my city they had a poll, 80% of women expected a man to pay for a nice (expensive) first date otherwise he wasn't worth dating. only 20% of women disagreed with this.
They also polled the men. The male split was 60/40. The hosts on the show where they did the poll had their mind blown how rabidly sexist the women were and immediately went on about how stupid it was and how men and women should each pay their own way until a relationship is established.
Do you think it's purely just sexism, or do you think it maybe has something to do with the strategy women must employ to protect themselves from being assaulted by strangers?
Is the implication, then, that people with money are never dangerous individuals?
No, not never, but a monetary barrier probably does filter out some bad actors. Not all of course, and it probably filters out some good actors too unfortunately. But with the amount of assaults women are faced with, I understand why they feel the need to be somewhat choosy.
the reason they are choosey is they like rich men and want money.
the worst thing i man can be to a woman is poor. being rich will excuse a lot other factors, including assault. i've literally dated women who admitted they were raped by men but it wasn't so bad because he was rich. more than one, in fact. one of them literally told me about her sexual assault, but then was like 'oh but he had the most comfortable luxurious bedsheets and he said they cost $500'.
least to say i stopped seeing those women immediately after they admitted that. apparently rape isn't so bad if a rich guy is doing it to you. it's only bad if the guy isn't rich.
a lot of women have a completely messed up psychology about money and sex.
Where do you people find these "happy in rape" women?
they aren't happy being raped. they see a guy being rich and hot as a mitigating his crime against them though. it's less 'rapey' to be raped by a rich hot guy. the scary rape is the one from the homeless drug addict. the former is an unfortunate circumstance, the latter is a heinous crime.
gender also doesn't matter. if an ugly female teacher rapes boys, it's 'gross'. if a hot blonde teacher does it it's 'what a lucky boy'.
the attractiveness of the criminal excuses their criminality, and often invites jealousy from onlookers that they were not victimized by the attractive person.
What a world we live in. Can't wait for some GMO or AI thing to outcompete humans (=
how does expecting a guy to buy you a $200 dinner prevent him from assaulting you?
or are you saying if a guy can only buy you a $20 drink, or doesn't buy you a drink, he's dangerous and awful?
because that shit is not only sexist, it's classist. the assumption that wealthy people are morally better people is patently wrong.
It really does ring faintly of a "poor people are dangerous" kind of note.
Yeah, if anything, I feel like a guy paying $200 for a meal would expect something in return and might get aggressive.
Nah you're missing the point. The problem is that men assault women disproportionately. That's what needs to be called out as sexism, that's what needs addressed, that's what needs to change.
What about women who assault men, are they cool and we don't need to call them out?
I've been raped, groped, and physically assaulted by women a lot more than I have ever been by men. I've never assaulted a woman, but I've met woman who have physically attacked me for not raping them.
from where i stand it's woman on man violence that really needs to be addressed. because it's normalized and male rape victims are mocked and harassed.
it's almost as if shitty people assaulting people isn't a gendered thing. it's a shitty people thing. maybe it's shitty people who need to be called out, not men or women as a whole.
What does buying their dinner have to do with protecting them from being assaulted? If anything the guy paying for everything is going to be more likely to expect something in return.