The Private Man

Attraction and dating information for all men

Guys, Don’t Be A Schmuck

Early in the dating process, when a man and a woman have clear mutual attraction and the possibility of a serious relationship is on the near horizon, women often develop some unpleasant expectations from the man. She starts to feel that the man owes her something, something tangible that costs him money. She calls it generosity . He should call it exploitation.

Guys, here’s the rule – if you’re not also directly enjoying the act of your generosity through her actions, you’re a schmuck, a putz, a nebbish. You’re being exploited in the most venal, selfish way imaginable. I say directly enjoy because her smile and words of gratitude are fleeting and can vanish with a mere thought on her part. Smiles and words are too easy for women. She has to earn, through actions over time, your generosity.

If you don’t expect to directly enjoy your generosity through her actions, she will lose respect for you. You’ve become a beast of burden, only deserving to be figuratively whipped when your generosity again becomes necessary for her. No woman respects a man who is in that position. Her hindbrain is telling her that he’s weak and supplicating, no matter what her words might indicate – actions over words, above all.

When a woman expects generosity, a man must directly communicate his own expectations in return. Here’s the immediate response he must deliver when she mentions his “generosity”: “What will you do for me?” There’s nothing selfish about this. That question is the manifestation of a man standing up for himself. He’s showing some backbone. He’s showing confidence. The woman will likely spew out some feisty words in response but a man must ignore that logorrhea. Instead, he must look to her subsequent actions, they will likely be diametrically opposed to her words.

A woman’s expectation of generosity is also a huge shit test for the man. If he says no, he fails that test. If he says yes, he also fails that test. If he applies serious conditions to that generosity expectation, he passes the test. “Sure, I’ll buy that for you, what are you going to for me?” If her response is that her presence is enough or that she’ll stop dating him if he doesn’t, then the man must gird his loins and cut her adrift because she’s simply too selfish to maintain a relationship beyond casual dating. She perceives herself as a special snowflake princess, the type of woman to avoid.

I am completely aware that the definition of generosity does not imply a reciprocal action from the receiving party. But women demand generosity, a concept that also flies in the face of the that word’s dictionary definition. A man’s generosity must be random and unpredictable. It will mean so much more to her. As well, she’ll likely respond in a reciprocal fashion. And guys, don’t forget that dependability and predictability are not attractive to women, no matter what they might say.

Relationships during the early phase of dating is when the pattern of expectations is formed. If she expects generosity and he delivers it consistently and dependably, he’s a schmuck and she will find someone who has some backbone. You’re welcome.

[If you liked this blog post, support my continued efforts through my Patreon or click the Donate button at the top, left side of this page. Thanks!]

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

29 thoughts on “Guys, Don’t Be A Schmuck

  1. rugby11ljh on said:

    One hell of a good read. Going out in the field and going to pay attention to this.

  2. Pingback: Guys, Don’t Be A Schmuck | Manosphere.com

  3. One should avoid those who demand generosity without showing it in return.
    How does one not simply stare back in disbelief at a fellow adult (who presumably has a job of their own) that has asked for you to buy something for them?

    • Married Man on said:

      How does one not simply stare back in disbelief at a fellow adult (who presumably has a job of their own) that has asked for you to buy something for them?

      A lot of men are really hungry for female companionship, swallow their self respect in the process. They have the famine mindset, don’t realize the girl tree is always full. Some others might like to play Daddy Gotbux to some little girl.

      Nobody should demand generosity without a good reason. A really, really good reason.

      • The thing about generosity is that it really can’t be “demanded” anyway. Forcing someone to give you stuff is more akin to blackmail or a hostage situation.

  4. Omega Man on said:

    This is quite similar to other manosphere advice which states that you don’t take a woman out for dinner or any other costly event until after you’ve slept with her. Only then is she deserving of your generosity.

    This is good all round advice, in that it shows that a woman desires you for who you are, rather than for what’s in your wallet.

    • Omega Man,

      That just makes it sound like a more socially acceptable form of prostitution. I’d rather spend a few dates getting to know a guy through activities together, pay my own way in all of them, and not deal with pressure to have sex before both of us are ready…than to be a hooker. (Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with sex workers…I’m just not one.)

      • Omega Man on said:

        It also avoids the ladies who use men as a source of free meals and entertainment. The point being, that I need to get to know a potential partner before I start spending a large portion of my salary on her whims.

        I want a woman who wants me, not one who’s only interest is my wallet.

      • I can appreciate that. But then the question remains of why you would spend so much of your hard earned money on her, unless you’re confident she’ll do the same for you at a later date?

      • There’s a lot of fun cheap dates where you can get to know each other.

        Don’t be the guy a girl uses for free things.

        http://www.people.com/article/woman-uses-tinder-free-food

      • If I were a guy, I’d hold her to the same standard as I conduct myself now;
        We pay our own half of the event (whatever it is). Equality isn’t just for when it’s helpful…it’s a constant.

  5. I’ll be “generous” by providing wine at my truck. It’s romantic (automatic sexualization), gives me the chance to play host (dominant), and also makes sure that her mouth gets hit with antiseptic (and she has the same assurance to help with comfort).

  6. That wine is probably not grape-based.

    Paying a girl too much attention is another form of over generosity. it’s the one key mistake I regret the most.

  7. Jon’s three sentences he uses whenever I’m getting something:

    “I am going to get you XYZ.”

    “I have £X spare.”

    and/or:

    “You get what you’re given.”

    I’m more of the saving mindset and he sometimes has to argue to get me to accept something, but ultimately it still seems important to deliver the message that it’s his money to spend on what he wants. Whether I want to accept it or not, whether I want more or less: his money, what he wants.

  8. Value for value. Generosity is a wonderful trait in a man or woman, and should be actively sought but it can be exploited . Don’t be a shmuck. Don’t be a martyr. Value for value.

  9. Married Man on said:

    She starts to feel that the man owes her something, something tangible that costs him money. She calls it generosity . He should call it exploitation.

    He’s right. It is exploitation of his nature, his provider-nature that he likely was born with. She’s revealing herself as a taker, a parasite, a gold digger.

    True generosity is a gift that is freely given. A woman who demands generosity is setting a price tag on herself. That’s the kind of woman who cuts sex back to an I.V. drip after a while, demanding more “generosity” in exchange for setting the drip a bit faster.

    No dice. That is the road to slavery. Also she’s just another prostitute in the process.

    This situation can, probably will, arise in marriage. A man needs to maintain frame in the face of that shit test. It gets more difficult if life body slams a man down to the mat, betaizing him in the process. But a strong frame, and putting up with no shit, will in time win out one of two ways: either she straightens up and dials back her gold digging, or she walks and he will replace her with a more compliant woman. Religious men who cannot do that have other options in their religious texts, but that also requires a strong “Yes, it DOES say that, woman!” frame.

    Break-break
    For my own reasons I have decided to pick up a monocle in 2x or 3x magnification to quickly read stuff on the fly. This outfit looks pretty good, might be of use to the Private Man. They even do astigmatism and/or bifocal lens. Pretty cool.

    http://www.nearsights.com

    • Thanks for that link! I will seriously look into the monocle thing. I saw the photos of their customers and that leads to a potential issue… I don’t want to look like a hipster! (http://www.nearsights.com/pages/customer-pictures). But given the price of the frames, I think this is something to try out.

      • Married Man on said:

        Yeah, going by that gallery some of the customer base is a little out there. But I don’t think a handlebar moustache and beard is mandatory.

        Consider that commercial airline pilot, he looks pretty normal.

        Or go full mutant with a tinted one? That could work on a bike.

  10. GattoGrigio on said:

    Private Man you have a gift for zooming in on critical issues with a minimum of verbiage, unlike your peers. Well done sir!

    As a newly single, older & modestly high value male this phenomenon will enter my domain. There is no doubt about it.

    However , due to my inexperience (it’s been decades!) I’m having difficulty extrapolating from the trope ” If I buy you that what will you do me for me?”.

    Surely to link it to “qid pro quo” reciprocity involving pleasant physical acts smacks of prostitution?

    What would you, or your fellow readers, expect to receive as appropriate reciprocal generosity?

    • GattoGrigio,

      My lover and I usually do something of similar value/type. For example, I have more disposable income than he does, so I will almost always pay for our meals/movie tickets/entertainment/etc. However, he reciprocates by paying the tip/buying the popcorn/making the actual reservation.
      During the holidays we agree to not spend more than $50 on each other, so we always end up with a gift that takes true consideration and isn’t just some flashy expensive crap. The goal isn’t to keep one’s expenses exactly equal to the dollar…it’s about understanding that you may be in different places financially and working *with* this information.

      To be fair though, my relationship is seriously atypical than the norm as I’m the more dominant partner so I’m actually quite happy when he “pays me back” sexually from time to time. 😉

      • GattoGrigio on said:

        Ah Tarnished!

        Are you per chance a Closet Socialist?

        “From each according to their means. To each according their needs.”

        Seriously though, I agree totally & thank you for your answer. It has helped me to see it clearly now.

        The crux is for it to be two way traffic and the Socialism analogy is not far from the truth, is it?

        The partner who CAN afford to pay the higher prices does because they can. The partner who CAN’T reciprocates “according to their means”. The partner who can pay more thus sees & appreciates the contribution being offered as significant and hence the relationship is not about what the higher value partner possesses.

        e.g. I pay for a zinger of a meal at a “name” establishment. She buys me a spare parts book for my classic motorcycle that she bought for a few bucks at a flea market. Is that how it works?

        But the Danger Zone is when the transfer of resources in uni-directional, i.e. from the partner who has more to the partner who has less.

        It’s simple really, isn’t it?

      • Ha! No, not a socialist.

        But yes, the danger lies in the transfer of resources being uni-directional AND taken for granted. To go with your analogy, when I buy a nice dinner he always thanks me for paying and is genuine about it. He also, without fail, immediately pays the tip (and a nice one too, usually 15%). This shows that despite our financial differences, he is not content to be a mooch or is unappreciative.

        Now, if he acted like that woman…linked on this page…who disingenuously went on numerous 1st dates to take advantage of a cultural leftover that says “guy pays for the whole first date” (which is ridiculous in itself nowadays)…well, we wouldn’t be in the 9th year of our relationship.

        I’d also like to point out that being the higher income partner doesn’t necessarily mean everything you do for your partner need be expensive. One of the gifts he likes most is a maple filled chocolate bar from a specialty store near my town. It costs a whopping $3, so I’ll grab him a couple when I make the drive to his place. One is never obligated to spend more money than one is comfortable with.

      • Ms. Phoenix Burns on said:

        Your username is tarnished but your profile picture betrays your true estimation of your worth. You are clearly Redpill but I think you have missed the point. Equal does not mean the same, this is one classic liberal mistake. Men are more typically the providers. All men pay for sex in one way or another. All prostitues are whores but not all whores are prostistutes. All women are whores in one way or another. I don’t mean this as a bad thing, there is a difference between a whore and a slut. By taking the dominant role you are inadvertently emasculating him. I fear you will both grow to recent each other over time.

      • Lol. I didn’t choose my current avatar…one of my online MGTOW friends found it for me, and I basically use it as an in-joke. It used to be a very weird looking mushroom, believe it or not.

        I am not Redpill. At most I am Purplepill. There are things I agree with in the manosphere, but also things I do not. The points I “miss” are simply ones I disagree with, either as a whole or, more likely, in my individual relationship.

        It’s obvious that equal doesn’t have to mean exactly the same. There are few, if any, people who are carbon copies of each other. Even twins and triplets aren’t 100% identical.

        Men are indeed more typically the providers. For those that want and enjoy that role, that is a very good thing. But for those who don’t want to take it on…like my lover, for example…this obviously causes dissonance between what comes natural to them as a person vs what society says they should do. Ergo, since I enjoy taking the provider role and he does not, it continues to work out in our favor.

        I’d like to hear more about how all men pay for sex + how all women are whores. And no, I’m not being snarky or sarcastic…I’d actually like to know more about this view of yours.

        If he wanted the dominant role of paying for our meals/entertainment, or if he wanted to be dominant in the bedroom more often, then he knows full well that it is something I’d be open to discussing and making changes to our relationship for. However, as I make more than him this would necessarily mean a drastic alteration to what we are capable of doing together, and would likewise incur more unnecessary debt/spending on his part. Why should I force that upon him, when neither of us want it? Just to conform to what society thinks we should do? Pshaw! Same as for in the bedroom…He is dominant sometimes, I am dominant sometimes, and other times there is no power play so we just have vanilla sex. I’m very flexible in what I find satisfying, so if he said he wanted to be the sole dominant partner for a month or two it would be absolutely fine. But he doesn’t, and once again I find it idiotic to force the one I love into a role he finds tiring some nights.

        I doubt we will come to resent each other. I’m now 31, and we’ve been together sexually since I was 22, and friends since I was 20. If he hasn’t said anything by now, or left, then it’s probably because he isn’t resentful…and I certainly am not. 🙂

  11. Pingback: Mr. Cellophane | The Private Man

  12. Pingback: Guys, Prioritize Your Efforts On Yourself | The Private Man

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: