If I remember right, this is your first post on this thread. Obviously you have given the issue some thought and were just waiting to use that A-bomb.
You are right, of course, and it's almost an unavoidable trap.
Just convince me that it's not also a female failing. Show me the female who also does not gravitate to the "hunks". The arguable difference is that guys tend to learn the value of "other things" more quickly after failure.
The advantage of being fortunate enough to have a genuine second chance benefits both if there are no children involved. Unfortunately, for both sexes, in the overwhelming number of cases, when children are involved, there is no second chance for either to have the traditional family life. Or to date accordingly.
I agree with everything Mamzelle said her in post.
I also pointed to that same "phenom" earlier - my date within your species comment... or at least take a realistic assessment of your looks before you think Pam Anderson wants to go out with your pudgy, balding self.
I think women are more likely to look beyond a bald spot and a beer belly - while men still think they 'deserve' the barbie doll.
Pity.
I also think women are more practical in choosing a mate than men, because children are often in her plan. That's where the golddigging comes in.
Maybe a man can't help falling for what his eyes see--"He loves first with his eyes"--but he'd better learn not to love *only* with his eyes. I do get tired of this folly being justified by "nature"--nature is what we're put on earth to rise above.
I don't go for the hunks. I want someone who is honest, loving, caring, and who loves animals and children. He also has to be a Christian.
Last prerequisite, Harm has to approve him before I would go out. ;)