#3 is a hero

omg what a loser. prove him wrong. please.

I hope you shoved the necklace down his throat ... unless you wanted to / agreed with him... in that case, have fun.

His lost your win! :] Not only can you choose not to sleep w/ him but you get a necklace. That definitely goes in the win pile.

If you haven't slept with him already, he's a fool for giving you expensive jewelry. If you aren't going to now, then personally I would not keep you around if I were him. Then again, I'd also find a way to take the jewelry back, so I'm not sure how great my opinion is. Still, I believe strongly in Karma and sometimes Karma needs a push. If you can't be his, why should his generous gifts be yours?

Well, now you know what to do if you want expensive jewelery Tempt him with sexy outfits. You will soon be rolling in it

Keep the necklace, ditch the guy. There might have been an expectation of sex that came with the necklace ... both on his part and (if you're honest) on yours, but he lost it when he made a tacky comment. That's definitely not a "beginning of the relationship" kind of joke, true or not...

Take the necklace, and dump him. ;)

#39 - your comment can go back to hell now. #45 - no, honey, you don't "owe" anyone sex if they buy you something expensive. if you have sex with someone out of obligation, it ruins it entirely. please grow a backbone. #60 - excellent idea! #64 - you said it perfectly. I wish more people agreed with/were like you. #69 - "the point is not, you have to put out if a man buys you an expensive gift. The point is if you go out with a man and he buys you a gift like that, he is basically propositioning you for sex in so many words." way to contradict yourself, fool.

Response to part three of #91; "Oh and for all the guys saying dinner = sex, it's not like you did something super brilliant that's bound to make a girl melt in your arms... OMG HE PAID FOR DINNER *SWOON*! " Taking a woman out to dinner is the evolution of what was once part of a very meaningful mating ritual; The male presenting the female with the spoils of his hunt to show her that he is not only able to feed and support her now, but also able to do so for the children. Thanks to society, such displays are no longer considered good enough. We all have to be rocks stars, and poets, and pretend to be confident and romantic to get our mates. Not only are you undercutting the evolution of mating rituals, you are also asking others to make it EVEN MORE DIFFICULT for males to successfully mate. Now, I understand you and agree in one perspective, there should be a meaningful relationship, and that he was foolish to so bluntly state that he expected reciprocation for his display in the mating ritual (as for some bizarre reason, talking about the elephant in the room can **** up the mating ritual) But what exactly is a meaningful relationship anymore? What is good enough? I ask you this, 91. What is raising the bar?