Posted on 09/17/2005 6:59:48 AM PDT by teldon30
Dear Amy: I'd like to be in a relationship again, but I never even get asked out (unless you count frisky 85-year-olds and drunks at the corner bar). I'm a 32-year-old woman who's happy, sociable, and attractive. (I paid for college by modeling and continue to take care of myself.) I'm second-in-command at a big company, financially secure, and own a beautiful home. How can I meet men in general, and more specifically, men I'd actually want to date?
Deluxe Chopped Liver
Dear Deluxe: To scare away vampires, it takes garlic and crosses, which make ugly bulges in sleek, satin evening bags. Luckily, all you have to do to scare away men is pull out a business card that says ''senior vice president.''
''Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac,'' said Henry Kissinger. Sure it is — unless you're a woman. Research by Stephanie L. Brown and Brian P. Lewis, published in Evolution and Human Behavior (Nov. '04), seems to confirm what many lonely women at the top already know: When guys go for the woman in the boardroom, it isn't the woman running the meeting but the secretary who wheeled in the coffee and croissants before it started.
Sure, plenty of men will scamper up the corporate ladder for a one-night stand. But, according to Brown and Lewis' study, men looking for dates or relationships tend to prefer their subordinates to their colleagues or bosses. The researchers hypothesize that men evolved to want women they can control as a means of guarding against ''parental uncertainty'' — unwittingly raising kids fathered by the Neanderthal next door as their own. Brown and Lewis think this may also explain why men are suckers for ''behavioral expressions of vulnerability'' — women who act like they might not be able to make it across the street
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com ...
It would seem obvious to me that people would discuss precisely this before they got married. How can you discuss something rationally unless you have considered it?
You are not the only one, mate. Some things it only takes the accusation to be made to ruin your name. Been there, had it done to Me, refuse to buy the t-shirt. Oddly enough, for the sex that is understood to be able to say 'no' they are strangely unable to accept when they are on the receiving end of it, no matter now innocuously put.
It goes like this:
The randy old millionaire approaches the ravishing beauty and asks "would you sleep with me for one million dollars?"
After a minute to consider the proposition, she answers "Sure."
He then asks her "would you sleep with me for fifty dollars?"
She angrily replies "What kind of girl do you think I am?"
"We've already established that my dear. Now we're haggling price."
Well you can do a lot more with a million bucks rather than fifty.
I think that is the crux of it, really. I just do not know how to put it to her in the right way that I am simply not interested even if she thinks she is ready for more. It is not all about her, and the fact that she abruptly decided that 'freedom' was more important to her not that long ago tells Me all I need to know about her character in full and that she will in all probability not be willing to stick it out for the long run. Why would I wish to pursue a path with an unreachable destination?
The demands of a fast track corporate career are frequently quite high. There isn't anytime left in the day to be a parent or a spouse...
I hear you mate. She is very persistant however, and I just do not want to be labled a 'Heartless SOB' by anyone -been on the receiving end of that from certain individuals in the past and it is not as if I dislike her. I just am not willing to be with her.
I won't fault you, but I don't see anything to praise either. What you're saying is that if a man whose mind you otherwise love suddenly loses his job, he's not such an appealing person anymore.
You have your reasons, but they don't really involve the man's feelings, and I think that's what bothered Utilizer.
No, you are in denial, and justifying it by asserting the limiting factor is not the *only* factor.
Welfare clients don't consider how many babies they can financially pop out.
You all misunderstand.
I guess you missed the part where I said "marriage."
I see you totally bypassed My previous comments on that matter, specifically My fiance. I am not attempting to deliberately offend you; I just find your position debasing in the extreme even considering what you apparently consider to be mitigating factors. I still believe that if you truly care for someone everything else will work out, but if you truly are one that is fixated even in part on his pocketbook, then the opinions of us males towards such positions are totally understandable. Not that I expect you to agree or even accept My discussion thereof, let alone completely comprehend it.
I think you totally misunderstood. Clearly money is a factor in marriage, and a woman should consider what her potential spouse makes.
to deny that is foolish. the person to whom you were replying implied nothing more than this. And I agree that that is a factor to be considered. In fact a woman who completely ignores the income-making potential of her potential spouse is foolish, unless she is independently wealthy.
I don't know crap about me Jack. Who are you to judge me and my marriage.
Wow what a bummer of a tale, so sorry
oops I=you
I understand, but it is what is.
"You all misunderstand."
see my post 1034--I think I do understand your point. If not, please correct it so that we all do understand.
As in my adorable dog
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.