Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

[yankees60]

[

One of the absolute top ten rules for guys with regards to women is Pay no attention to what they say, only to what they do.

Shouldn't that be expanded to include anyone and everyone? Aren't all of us (present company included) inconsistent with what we espouse and our actual behaviors?

Vinny

[CT-Scott]

Who the heck carries a wallet anymore. We all have Apple Pay, or Zenmo, or Zelle.

Check out Marie Curie! She's more up-to-date with technology than I am. I thought I was on the forefront because I never carried cash (my wife is still into carrying cash), but I must admit that I'm still behind-the-times in regards to using some of these apps to transfer money around. Though, in my defense, I charge everything with a card that earns me over 2% cashback.

That gives her the opening to say what she actually wants, which may be different from what she said earlier. Maybe Smithy will like the answer and maybe he won't, but it's more likely to be the truth. It's more likely to help them get to know each other better than dropping hints to change behavior about this one thing.

Sage advice, and I agree. As I stated earlier, maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I'm fine being the one to "pay the way" so long as my mate isn't just blatantly taking advantage of me for some free meals, and actually has sincere interest in me.

[

One of the absolute top ten rules for guys with regards to women is Pay no attention to what they say, only to what they do.

Shouldn't that be expanded to include anyone and everyone? Aren't all of us (present company included) inconsistent with what we espouse and our actual behaviors?

Also very true!

[yankees60]

[ Though, in my defense, I charge everything with a card that earns me over 2% cashback.

Same here. I assume we are using the same Cash Back card?

When I bought that iPad last week for $50 and paid cash for it, it was the first time I'd used cash since March 7th.

This goes way back with me. When I was 18 years old I was able to persuade someone who at the time I thought was Mafia to accept checks on a regular basis from me just so I would not have to deal with cash.


Vinny

[CT-Scott]

Though, in my defense, I charge everything with a card that earns me over 2% cashback.

Same here. I assume we are using the same Cash Back card?

Maybe. I think there may be 2-3 others. Mine is Alliant Credit Union's Visa Signature card. It's 2.5% cashback on up to $10K/month worth of purchases, and with a $99 annual fee (waived the first year).

If you can find a way to charge up $10K/month (not so hard for some of us over-spenders), it can absolutely be worth that $99/year fee.

When I first signed up, it was an even better deal, because you'd get an extra 0.5% (3% total) cashback for the 1st year, there was no monthly limit, and the annual fee was lower.

In addition to that primary card I use, I have:
- the Citi Double CashBack card (when it first came out as a 2% cashback card), but haven't used that much in quite some time.
- an AmEx Blue Cash Preferred card - 6% cashback on groceries, 3% cashback on gas
- an Amazon credit card which gives 5% cashback on Amazon and WholeFoods and 2% for restaurants and drug stores

When I first started getting my various cards figured out, I had to keep reminding my wife which card to use for which type of purchase, and she'd frequently get it wrong. Eventually she got it right (well, most of the time).

All that said, rather than get 5% cashback with our overspending, I'd much rather get 0% back and have us living much more frugally. I think we've gotten much better over the last few years, but we have a long way to go.

[dualstow]

Don't shoot the question asker, but does anybody think these cards are going to become less generous when the economy shrinks? I'm ready for it. In comparison to the low savings rates, I feel I've been spoiled by cash back:

4% on dining from Savor (No annual fee; I got in early).
3% on groceries from TD Cash, I think. Savor above, same.
2% on anything and everything from Fidelity.
and so on. Amazon card...

Can they keep it up?

[yankees60]

Maybe. I think there may be 2-3 others. Mine is Alliant Credit Union's Visa Signature card. It's 2.5% cashback on up to $10K/month worth of purchases, and with a $99 annual fee (waived the first year).

I had never heard of that card: https://www.nerdwallet.com/card-details ... -Signature. What makes it: "Exclusively designed for those spending $50,000+ a year on their card"?

If you can find a way to charge up $10K/month (not so hard for some of us over-spenders), it can absolutely be worth that $99/year fee.

I'd never come close to spending that in a month!

When I first signed up, it was an even better deal, because you'd get an extra 0.5% (3% total) cashback for the 1st year, there was no monthly limit, and the annual fee was lower.

In addition to that primary card I use, I have:
- the Citi Double CashBack card (when it first came out as a 2% cashback card), but haven't used that much in quite some time.

That is the one I use exclusively for all except for.....

- an AmEx Blue Cash Preferred card - 6% cashback on groceries, 3% cashback on gas
- an Amazon credit card which gives 5% cashback on Amazon and WholeFoods and 2% for restaurants and drug stores

….Use this one exclusively for ALL Amazon purchases.


When I first started getting my various cards figured out, I had to keep reminding my wife which card to use for which type of purchase, and she'd frequently get it wrong. Eventually she got it right (well, most of the time).

All that said, rather than get 5% cashback with our overspending, I'd much rather get 0% back and have us living much more frugally. I think we've gotten much better over the last few years, but we have a long way to go.

[Smith1776]

Dualstow, this indeed is going to be in my next act. I was working on some jokes this morning, and one of them was about this particular chestnut haha.

Xan hit the nail on the head with this one for me. It's not that I necessarily mind paying, it's the fact that we already discussed this and she agreed that splitting was really the way to go. That's really the kind of relationship I want to be in. Everything equitable. Now she does all this dodgy stuff and conveniently doesn't pay. I'd honestly have more respect for someone who simply told me straight up and said "Hey, I disagree. I'm old fashioned, and I think that the man should be chivalrous and pay for the date." Fine, at least you told me.

Part of me feels like getting her the silicone wallet thing for her phone would be funny, but also kind of a weird passive aggressive move haha.

Tech, you asked (maybe tongue in cheek?) about getting my money's worth. I think someone else mentioned in the thread in passing about sex as reciprocity. Well, I mean we have been physical, but I personally don't view my spending money on dates as buying sex. That wasn't my aim. I figure if I wanted to spend moolah on sex it would have been more straightforward to just hire a call girl or something.

People think that hiring an escort is some dirty and uncouth thing. But you know what? At least with an escort it's an honest and straightforward transaction: money for sex. It's a straight up economic relationship, and there's no confusion or games being played. Compare that with a situation like the one I'm in where each person is trying to decipher ulterior motives on the part of the other person. "Is he here just for sex? Is she here just to be pampered and paid for?" Which scenario is actually more aboveboard?

[Libertarian666]

Dualstow, this indeed is going to be in my next act. I was working on some jokes this morning, and one of them was about this particular chestnut haha.

Xan hit the nail on the head with this one for me. It's not that I necessarily mind paying, it's the fact that we already discussed this and she agreed that splitting was really the way to go. That's really the kind of relationship I want to be in. Everything equitable. Now she does all this dodgy stuff and conveniently doesn't pay. I'd honestly have more respect for someone who simply told me straight up and said "Hey, I disagree. I'm old fashioned, and I think that the man should be chivalrous and pay for the date." Fine, at least you told me.

Part of me feels like getting her the silicone wallet thing for her phone would be funny, but also kind of a weird passive aggressive move haha.

Tech, you asked (maybe tongue in cheek?) about getting my money's worth. I think someone else mentioned in the thread in passing about sex as reciprocity. Well, I mean we have been physical, but I personally don't view my spending money on dates as buying sex. That wasn't my aim. I figure if I wanted to spend moolah on sex it would have been more straightforward to just hire a call girl or something.

People think that hiring an escort is some dirty and uncouth thing. But you know what? At least with an escort it's an honest and straightforward transaction: money for sex. It's a straight up economic relationship, and there's no confusion or games being played. Compare that with a situation like the one I'm in where each person is trying to decipher ulterior motives on the part of the other person. "Is he here just for sex? Is she here just to be pampered and paid for?" Which scenario is actually more aboveboard?

The short answer is: As a general rule, men want sex and women want resources.
This can play out in countless ways, including marriage, prostitution, and dating.
However, the general rule still applies across cultures and times.

Personally I like marriage where it is reasonably equitable, e.g., in a less misandrist country than the US or Canada. I'm fortunate in that my wife is very unlikely to take undue advantage, but that's not something one can rely on in general.

[dualstow]

Tech, you asked (maybe tongue in cheek?) about getting my money's worth. I think someone else mentioned in the thread in passing about sex as reciprocity. Well, I mean we have been physical, but I personally don't view my spending money on dates as buying sex. That wasn't my aim. I figure if I wanted to spend moolah on sex it would have been more straightforward to just hire a call girl or something.

People think that hiring an escort is some dirty and uncouth thing. But you know what? At least with an escort it's an honest and straightforward transaction: money for sex. It's a straight up economic relationship, and there's no confusion or games being played. Compare that with a situation like the one I'm in where each person is trying to decipher ulterior motives on the part of the other person. "Is he here just for sex? Is she here just to be pampered and paid for?" Which scenario is actually more aboveboard?

It’s a very jaded and misogynistic (if insightful) statement in my opinion but perhaps true for many johns, and I get the point: a well-known comedian once said, You don’t pay a prostitute to show up. You pay her to leave.

I’m glad that your frame of mind does not include sex as reciprocity. I think you’re off to a good start. (I know, it sounds like I’m talking to a 17-year-old and not a thirtysomething. I don’t mean it that way).

[Smith1776]

It’s a very jaded and misogynistic (if insightful) statement in my opinion but perhaps true for many johns, and I get the point: a well-known comedian once said, You don’t pay a prostitute to show up. You pay her to leave.

I’m glad that your frame of mind does not include sex as reciprocity. I think you’re off to a good start. (I know, it sounds like I’m talking to a 17-year-old and not a thirtysomething. I don’t mean it that way).

Right, that's totally fair. And I don't take offence at all.

To kind of elaborate on my thinking, I've seen way too many occurrences of guys wining and dining girls, telling them they care, only to finally convince the girl to sleep with them. Once they get what they want they just ghost the girl and leave. At least with an escort-john transaction, the motives of each party are much more "honest" in that sense.

[dualstow]

Absolutely. If it weren’t for STDs, I think that business would be out of the shadows. It would be ubiquitous. It would be in Costco.
“Mom, I’m going to pick up a pastry.”

[Smith1776]

Absolutely. If it weren’t for STDs, I think that business would be out of the shadows. It would be ubiquitous. It would be in Costco.
“Mom, I’m going to pick up a pastry.”

I know what I'm having with my morning coffee tomorrow.

[Smith1776]

Which statement was misogynistic? And why do you think so?

I was wondering that a little bit too. Was it a cynical statement? Sure, but I didn't feel like what I said was particularly misogynistic.

[Xan]

I believe Dualstow was talking about the trite phrase "You don’t pay a prostitute to show up. You pay her to leave.", not anything anyone here said.

[Smith1776]

I believe Dualstow was talking about the trite phrase "You don’t pay a prostitute to show up. You pay her to leave.", not anything anyone here said.

Oooooooooh. Yeah, I see it now.

[dualstow]

Yes, what Xan said. I went for the awkward word order on that one and still failed to make that clear. Nothing anybody said here in this thread was misogynostic.

And there are milder variations of what the comedian (Artie Lange) said. For example, Rod Stewart after many marriages and divorces: “I’m going to cut out the middleman (next time). I’ll just find a woman I don’t like and buy her a house.”

[Libertarian666]

Yes, what Xan said. I went for the awkward word order on that one and still failed to make that clear. Nothing anybody said here in this thread was misogynostic.

And there are milder variations of what the comedian (Artie Lange) said. For example, Rod Stewart after many marriages and divorces: “I’m going to cut out the middleman (next time). I’ll just find a woman I don’t like and buy her a house.”

I'm sure he's not the only one to have said that.

[Kriegsspiel]

Nothing anybody said here in this thread was misogynostic.

Hold my beer.

[dualstow]

[Tortoise]

Absolutely. If it weren’t for STDs, I think that business would be out of the shadows. It would be ubiquitous. It would be in Costco.
“Mom, I’m going to pick up a pastry.”

When I visited Amsterdam 15 years ago, prostitution was legal and very out in the open (in certain parts of the city).

At night you'd walk by certain buildings with big floor-to-ceiling windows and see a scantily-clad woman standing in front of each one, dancing or posing under neon or black lights, beckoning passersby to come in. Big business.

I recall hearing that Amsterdam's prostitution industry was heavily regulated by the government, and the prostitutes had good salaries and benefits like health care. Not sure if STDs have ever been a big problem for them.

[yankees60]

This is an example. Yours was the first "unread" post I was brought to. Thus I have no idea what you are reacting to.

VInny

[Tortoise]

This is an example. Yours was the first "unread" post I was brought to. Thus I have no idea what you are reacting to.

If he doesn't quote something, he's typically responding to the post immediately prior to his.

[dualstow]

[Smith1776]

[yankees60]

This is an example. Yours was the first "unread" post I was brought to. Thus I have no idea what you are reacting to.

If he doesn't quote something, he's typically responding to the post immediately prior to his.

Maybe. Maybe not. Someone else's post could have (and not infrequently does) appeared between the one he is responding to and his response.

When I encounter a post without context I just keep going on. I don't go back to try to determine its context.

I'm not asking anyone to do anything. Just informing how I respond to posts like that.

Vinny