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 ...
You have summed up, in pedestrian terms, my contention that "A husband cannot lead a wife that refuses to follow."
You understand. And are the only one in this thread who does. I commend you.
"Twelve O'Clock High" was a good show too but way after Palladin
Well that's certainly true, but it doesn't get to the point of the story, now does it?
Amigio, I've been called a lot worse than 'Heartless SOB!' Us Heartless SOBs are lots of fun to hang around with! ;-)
I didn't judge you or your marriage. I looked at your comments, and they're not very ambiguous.
I knew that--I was just playing around. putting a little levity in this thread.
You specifically stated that your choice to marry was made with the consideration of how much money a month your spouse was capable of providing. Would you be as understanding if the reverse were true and you knew YOU were being evaluated in such a manner? Or, how about finding out that you were selected for what physical attributes you were capable of proffering in exchange for the wedding vows? Plus NO income is guaranteed, so yes I believe that such a blatently mercenary consideration is a firm indicator that such a one remaining in the relationship will always be a conditional situation and not considered to be the traditional long-run affair should the expected financial rewards diminish over time.
What point? How much sex is worth?
Are you still single?
Oh good, I've tried that myself a couple of times but some people are so determined to be self important than they can't let go and lighten up!
"Or, how about finding out that you were selected for what physical attributes you were capable of proffering in exchange for the wedding vows?"
Well that maybe something you consider. But my husband got to know me for who I was and my heart and that was what he fell in love with.
I'm beginning to think that you are refusing to understand what she is saying. Please see my post #1034. It's really quite simple.
The funny thing is that my wife agreed to marry me when I was unemployed.
GMTA. I told my wife, many moons ago, "don't expect me to participate in a game (contest of wills) I can't win, because you get to change the rules."
Bless her lovely heart, she abides by it.
I knew I bloody well had you figured from the start. Finances for you are not _A_ consideration they are _THE_ overriding consideration.
Spot on; thanks mate.
You don't have anything about me figured out Bub!
"Well you can do a lot more with a million bucks rather than fifty."
"I knew I bloody well had you figured from the start. Finances for you are not "A" consideration they are "THE" overriding consideration."
darn it, that was supposed to be frivolous. I'm a guy, and even I could see that.
Palladin did nothing for Me. I enjoyed "Have Gun, Will Travel" and "The Rifleman" more.
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.