I'm coming to this conversation fairly late, but I think the most important thing to remember about inter-gender dynamics is this: always pay attention to context and perspective because they will often determine how people view these issues. A girl might think a particular "nice guy" is an entitled creep. A guy might think a girl is a selfish user. "Surprisingly", they both might be talking about the exact same situation, and there's a decent chance they might both be right. Even an appeal to third party observation typically solves nothing; there are plenty of people on both sides of such debates, all of them armed with powerful personal anecdotes and/or "statistics" aimed at demonstrating, unequivocally, the rightness of their side.
For the most part, it's a bunch of tricky alternate language deployed in an attempt to dress-up the age-old conflicts and hurt feelings that arise whenever and wherever human courtship rears its head. Despite the best wishes of many, and the explicit demands of so many online dating profiles, romantic entanglements frequently involve drama. That drama manifests in nuanced and multifaceted fashions, and the notion that we can somehow crystallize such interactions into digestible little bits of wisdom and custom is ridiculous.
If, however, we're going to dive headlong into these kinds of discussions, we should at least be methodical and respectful of both sides. When a gal finds out all of the affection she'd been soaking up was, in fact, some sort of bargain for her intimacy, she feels mislead. She's logically upset, yes, but might she also be indulging in overly reductive reasoning? If you want to head down the road of distilling/dividing human behavior into two distinct camps, "the stuff we do for free" and "the stuff we do for exchange", I've got some bad news for you: there's only one camp. So where do we draw the line between acceptable versus unacceptable "exchange-based" behavior? Who draws it?
You know who else feels mislead? The guy who internalized pretty much a life-time of media and real-life women telling him how to attract a woman (be sweet, be her friend, be asexual, etc.) only to find out none of that amounts to a damn thing. The only deciding factor is the chemistry of raw attraction, and that can never be negotiated or manipulated - not in the way society has programmed young men to behave. So those young men, upon failing, become confused and upset as well - especially when so much of what they contributed to the "courtship" involved valuable commodities like time, opportunity, and money. It should be noted: there are more than a few women out there who will gladly suck up these commodities knowing they can't/won't reciprocate the deeper feelings that are (almost always) obvious.
There's also the male/female divide when considering things like "relationship equity". By in large, men believe in it. It's a very deductive principle. It's also completely wrong. There aren't, unfortunately, many sources telling people such things. Probably because a lot of groups directly profit from the continued wayward fumblings of so many confused mislead people.
Anyways, I've rambled for quite a bit. If only one thing can stand out, though, it should be this: these things are ridiculously complex with a ton of variables related to context and, often times, the individual. Anyone who buys into the sweeping generalizations of this MRA blog or that Social Justice tumblr is doing everyone, including themselves, a disservice.
