Responding to my article on guys not needing much money to get girls, reader Newyorkboy asks about women having 'resistance to doing' cheap or costless dates.
As an example, he cites this incident posted on SoSuave.net by a user named 'powersize':
Texted a latina girl in IG, after a short convo proposed to meet. She is 7/8 - not a dime for me. Below is our conversation:
Me: Are you free tonight?
Her: Maybe. Where would you like to take me?
Me: There is one hipster pub close to center
Her: I can’t drink alcohol. I prefer somewhere more relax.
Her: No. A restaurant where we don’t have that much noise
Me: I do not go on dinners on the first date
Her: I do. That’s what gentleman should do At least that’s what I am getting used to.
Me: So you define if the guy is a gentleman if he brings to you to a fancy place?
Her: Who says it has to be fancy. I define a gentleman a man who takes his time to take me somewhere. A coffee is something I can do anytime
Me: Too bad. Cause I love coffee meeting that people can do anytime
Her: Enjoy your coffee then
I do consider her as a typical chick who is looking for guy. So no reply from my side.
What do you think?
In light of the abysmal text game on evidence here and the fact that this fellow is messaging girls in Instagram, the girl's reaction is pretty standard. Generous, even, I'd say.
Most of the time when you fail at game, you get a rejection. But sometimes when you fail at game, girls will still offer you a shot as a provider.
That's what happened here.
Of course, if you're going to be a provider, you have to provide. You cannot start talking about your rules of never doing dinner dates or talking up the glory of cheap dates once she's slotted you into the provider role.
So not only did this cat fail at game, he could not fulfill the provider role either -- and he at last received the inevitable rejection.
How could he have done things differently and achieved a different result?
One part of the answer lies in how he deals with fielding women's counteroffers.