this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2025
658 points (95.9% liked)
Greentext
7429 readers
856 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
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?
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.