The Fallacy of the 50/50 Date
I agree with most of what the woman below says. I certainly never even think of asking a woman to pay. The big exception is her liking for expensive restaurants. I find that the more expensive the restaurant, the worse the service.
I get best service in ethnic restaurants (Vietnamese, Korean, Indian etc) plus more varied and interesting food. And I nearly always take women to such places. And I avoid snooty women that way too
A small caveat perhaps: The only women I get on with are highly intelligent so maybe they are more aware of what really matters rather than being distracted by superficialities. I have NEVER taken my very bright present girlfriend to anything fancy. We met in a suburban coffee lounge. She has a degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Belgrade!
See her below
A woman's 50% share is not a man's 50% share because, on average, women make less per dollar in salary. On average, a woman of my genetic background makes 60 percent of every man's dollar. So, if a meal costs 100 dollars, and a man asks me to split the bill 50/50, that means that my "$50" expense is equal to $60 of his dollars, and his portion is actually $50. I had to work 40% harder and more hours to earn the same $100 that he makes. The woman pays more with time and money when dates are split 50/50. It is not fair, and it is not equal.
In addition to this, women endure the hidden costs of dating that men take for granted. While men can shower and go, the average woman makes several salon appointments and goes shopping to make herself presentable because we understand that men are "visual creatures."
News flash; women do not roll out of bed looking as we present ourselves on dates. We could show up to dates bare-faced, zits exposed, in sweatpants with armpit hair, and greasy head hair, and crusty feet, but we do not. If we look good, it took lots of silent effort.
Before she even arrives at the date, the woman has likely spent: $350 or more. Here are a few hidden costs of dating for women:
Hair (Blowout): $120
Gel Nail Manicure: $45
Pedicure: $35
Dress: $109
Makeup: $20
Transportation: $40 (Gas and Parking)
Just as men want to be spared the details of our beauty regimens and the associated costs, we would like you to be quiet and swipe the card when the check comes.
Itemizing expenses on a date is in bad taste. Men would cringe to hear: "I paid $120 for my hairstyle. I paid $45 for my gel manicure." etc. We understand this. So, we do not speak on it, however, it is a lot to absorb financially.
Men should understand the economics of dating before asking a woman to pay for her food. Plan so that you do not get "sticker shock." Be kind, considerate, and appreciate the effort she silently put forth into making herself beautiful to you. Pay for the date.
2. Being a Cheapskate Robs You Too
Did you ever notice that you may need to flag the waiter down several times for service when you go to less expensive restaurants? Do you notice that servers in lower-tier restaurants generally do not take pride in their jobs? Do they seem aggravated and have no problem showing their frustration? Maybe the glasses have fingerprints, or the silverware is less than clean. Perhaps the food is still frozen and unevenly cooked. The customer service is lacking because they want to get you in and out.
When you pay more and opt for a more expensive restaurant, the service, the food, and the general experience are better. The servers are more highly compensated. Many are in study to be managers in the hospitality field. They care. The food is fresh and pulled from local farms instead of shipped in frozen containers and microwave heated, then transferred to your plate.
Some men think that getting a woman to “pay her share” or opting for a less expensive restaurant is helping him to save money. It is not. Being cheap robs you too. You get what you pay for. Save money until you can take her somewhere memorable. Who knows, you may have your first food orgasm.
It is also important to note that "home-cooked meals" are creepy first dates. It is very unsafe and grounds for assault or rape. Dates should be public.
If you do your research and ask around, you may be pleasantly surprised by your experience and new opportunities. It will be enjoyable for both of you.
3. Asking a woman to pay for half is immature
I can immediately tell that a man is inexperienced if he does not understand the economics of dating and is a cheapskate. With more years behind me than ahead of me now, I do not have time to entertain inexperience. It is a hard pass for me when a man cannot foot the bill which I can afford on my own.
Conclusion
Even if the date turns out not to be great, please keep in mind that a woman does not owe you sex in exchange for a meal. She does not owe you a relationship either. As mentioned before, she has already paid before showing up. It is a mutual exchange of time and energy, and resources.
Dating is an exercise that should be done in a comfortable, safe environment. In choosing the venue and paying the man is simply facilitating a meeting wherein he and a woman are bargaining their futures together.
Make sure the experience is worth every coin because happiness is priceless.
Do not negotiate the cost or quality of dates. Please do it for her and yourself.
Seize the day!
https://medium.com/tcg-by-mbmm/the-fallacy-of-the-50-50-date-bb6da72c1c59
**************************************************GOP Rep Says People Should Hit a Certain Age Before Making ‘Life-Altering’ Decisions About Gender Identity
Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert, from Colorado, said Friday that children should be required to reach a certain age before they make life-altering decisions regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.
“We require people to be 21 to purchase alcohol beverages, and 21 to purchase tobacco products,” Boeert wrote on Twitter. “Why is it so unreasonable to require people to reach a certain level of maturity before making life-altering decisions about their sexuality and identity?”
Last Thursday, both the United States Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Population Affairs and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's National Child Traumatic Stress Network released documents on “Transgender Day of Visibility” promoting “gender-affirming” healthcare for minors.
The day before, Arizona GOP Gov. Doug Ducey signed a series of bills, one of which, Senate Bill 1138, prohibits minors from underdoing sex reassignment surgey, as Townhall covered.
Senate Bill 1138 states that “a physician or other health care professional may not provide gender transition procedures to any individual under eighteen years of age."
In a letter to Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, Ducey explained that this type of surgery is irreversible and has a lasting impact on a person’s life.
“S.B. 1138 delays and irreversible gender reassignment surgery until the age of 18. The reason is simple, and common sense – this is a decision that will dramatically affect the rest of an individual’s life, including the ability of that individual to become a biological parent later in life,” Ducey wrote.
Lawmakers in Idaho also created legislation that would outlaw “gender-affirming health care” for minors.
Republican State Rep. Bruce Skaug, who sponsored the bill, told the House State Affairs Committee that children experiencing gender dysphoria should undergo mental health treatment rather than gender affirming treatment.
In addition, he said that children are too young to be making decisions of this magnitude that could alter the course of their lives, NPR-affiliated Boise State Public Radio reported.
“If we do not allow minors to get a tattoo, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, sign a legal contract, why would we allow them to go through these physical mutilations because of their feelings at the time,” he said. “It’s a bill to get proper treatment and to prevent them from lifelong, permanent decisions that will make them sterile and mutilate their bodies.”
****************************************************
The White House Is Pushing Puberty Blockers for ‘Trans Kids.’ It’s Relying on a Problematic Study
The Biden administration promoted the use of puberty blockers for transgender children by citing a study from an LGBT group funded in part by a manufacturer of the controversial drugs used in gender reassignment.
In statements commemorating "Transgender Day of Visibility," the White House and Department of Health and Human Services cited research from the Trevor Project to support the use of puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and sex-reassignment procedures in children seeking to change genders.
Two of the Trevor Project’s donors, AbbVie and Allergan, make drugs and medical products used in the medical gender transition process. The charitable foundations of both companies gave at least $50,000 to the Trevor Project, according to a review of tax documents and the Trevor Project’s website. The Trevor Project did not disclose the funding in its research.
The Biden administration’s support for "gender-affirming" care, the progressive buzzword for gender transitions, comes as conservatives push to stop the prescription of hormones and puberty blockers to children. Texas governor Greg Abbott (R.) has called on the state’s child welfare service to open abuse investigations into parents who give puberty blockers and hormones to children. Texas attorney general Ken Paxton (R.) subpoenaed AbbVie and drug maker Endo Pharmaceuticals, claiming both companies improperly promote the use of puberty blockers in transgender children.
The Trevor Project study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health and cited by numerous news outlets, claimed that teenagers with access to drugs and procedures to change genders were less likely to have depression and suicidal thoughts. The organization polled nearly 12,000 transgender and nonbinary youth, offering gift cards to some participants. In citing the study, HHS said "early" use of the drugs was "crucial" to the well-being of transgender children.
AbbVie makes Lupron, a drug designed to treat premature puberty that is sold off-label to transgender children. The company also sells Androgel, a testosterone booster used in the female-to-male transition process. Allergan makes materials used in gender reassignment procedures.
Though the medical gender transition industry is growing rapidly, some researchers say puberty blockers and hormone treatments for children have not been studied enough to ensure their safety.
A group of scientists, including a physician who has taken part in clinical research for AbbVie, wrote in a 2019 letter published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism that the therapies could cause sterility, sexual dysfunction, and cardiovascular problems. The researchers also said that limited data from people who have undergone gender transitions "fail to demonstrate long-term success in suicide prevention."
The Biden administration’s endorsement could pave the way for broader acceptance of the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy in children. The White House said in its fact sheet on Transgender Day of Visibility that children who identify as transgender have "the right to access gender-affirming health care."
Drug companies have ramped up funding for LGBT groups and transgender research in recent years. A group of Stanford researchers who released another influential study this year endorsing hormone treatments received funding from Pfizer and Arbor, according to a report from the Daily Caller. Pfizer sells estradiol, an estrogen hormone used by males transitioning to females.
Pfizer is a sponsor of the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT rights organization that was also cited in the HHS document touting treatment for transgender children. The document also cited research from the Endocrine Society, a medical group that has endorsed the use of puberty blockers for children seeking a gender change. AbbVie, Pfizer, and other drug companies that make drugs used in the gender transition process are corporate liaisons for the Endocrine Society. AbbVie gave $20,000 to the Endocrine Society in 2020.
https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/white-house-pushes-puberty-blockers-for-trans-kids/
**********************************************UK: Has the transgender bathroom question finally been answered?
Debbie Hayton
As Keir Starmer still struggles to tell us what he thinks the word ‘woman’ means, some much-needed common sense has been injected into the transgender debate. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published guidance for providers of single-sex and separate-sex services: in short, it says bathrooms and domestic abuse refuges can be single sex in certain circumstances. This is welcome news for women – and for transgender folk like me.
For too long, lobby groups have ruled the roost in this area, obfuscating language and denying reality. And the inevitable howls of protest in response to this publication have already started. I can understand the upset and anxiety being expressed by other trans people who had been persuaded that they had the right to use services designated for the opposite-sex just because they wanted to. But the resulting free-for-all has led in part to the increased suspicion of trans people. That helps nobody, least of all trans people.
Instead the guidance offers comfort and security to trans people. It reminds everyone that nobody can be excluded on the basis of their biological sex unless it is a ‘a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. Service providers, it says, need to demonstrate this and ‘balance the impact upon all service users.’ That includes trans people.
Trying to merge the rights of women and trans people together was never a good idea. It has satisfied nobody, and led to confusion that has fuelled an increasingly toxic debate. Women and transwomen are not the same and there are times when we need different services. Thankfully the EHRC is not only aware of that truth, but has had the bottle to point it out.
Without a hint of irony, the guidance explained that: ‘We have used plain English to help explain legal terms. This does not change the meaning of the law.’ The EHRC swiftly adds:
‘We use the term ‘biological sex’ because this is how legal sex is defined under the Equality Act for people who do not have a Gender Recognition Certificate.’
Maybe Starmer also needs to read this document before his next media interview? It might help him to stop fudging and start clarifying. Those making decisions about who can and can’t use their toilets are not helped by politicians engaging in political sparring; they need straight answers in order to do their jobs.
It’s also worth remembering amidst this angry debate that the EHRC has not changed the law. The Equality Act has been in place since 2010; paragraphs 26 and 27 set out the rules and give examples when providers can provide separate service for each sex or, ‘a service only to persons of one sex.’ The problem in recent years, though, is that confusion over language has led to uncertainty when it comes to separate services for women and men. That is why the EHRC’s use of the term biological sex is so important. Fear of being labelled as transphobic – and possibly losing funding as a result – has led to biology being displaced by feelings.
The guidance goes on to make it clear that:
‘The exceptions outlined in this guidance therefore do not depend on whether or not an individual has a Gender Recognition Certificate.’
Once again, this could not be clearer. Separate-sex and single-sex services are permitted because men and women have different biology; that is not affected by a legal fiction created under GRA. Thank goodness that the EHRC is willing to point this out.
https://spectator.com.au/2022/04/has-the-transgender-bathroom-question-finally-been-answered
************************************************Oklahoma lawmakers pass bill to make performing an abortion illegal
Oklahoma lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a bill to make performing an abortion a felony punishable by 10 years in prison and a $100,000 fine. That is likely to land the bill on the desk of the Republican governor, Kevin Stitt, who has promised to sign all anti-abortion legislation.
Oklahoma’s bill is just one in a raft of Republican bills to severely restrict or ban abortion, all timed before a widely anticipated supreme court case that disrupts nearly 50 years of established protections for abortion rights. If Oklahoma’s bill passes into law, it will take effect this summer.
“When [patients] hear this is happening, and probably will happen soon, they are in shock,” said Dr Iman Alsaden, medical director of Planned Parenthood Great Plains.
“The implications of all of this is there’s going to be a few states that are relied on to provide abortion care to people, and those people who do not live in those states will have to wait enormously long wait times,” said Alsaden. “You’re just looking at really making people jump through extraordinary hoops.”
More than 781,000 women of reproductive age live in Oklahoma. However, the bill is also expected to have an outsized impact on the nearly 7 million women of reproductive age who live in Texas. Thousands of pregnant Texans have relied on legal abortion in Oklahoma since Texas outlawed abortion after six weeks gestation in September 2021.
Since Texas outlawed most abortion services, Planned Parenthood Great Plains’s caseload of Texas patients has gone from about four dozen from September to December 2020, to more than 1,100 in the same three-month period in 2021. Demand from patients in Texas has been so great it has already displaced some Oklahoma patients, Alsaden said, who she has seen travel to Kansas for care.
Alsaden said Planned Parenthood Great Plains intended to challenge any abortion bans in court. However, the fate of any such challenge and others like it are uncertain.
Before former president Donald Trump took office, federal courts routinely blocked abortion bans. However, Trump was able to confirm three conservative justices, which tipped the balance of the supreme court to the right.
Since then, the supreme court has shown a willingness to severely restrict or perhaps overturn the right to terminate a pregnancy, even though the majority of Americans support legal abortion. A supreme court decision in a crucial abortion rights case is expected in June.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
1 comment:
Korobkova makes a good point about female preparation for a date but conveniently makes no point about potential post date costs if the date goes well.
Post a Comment