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 ...
"Well I've never had sex outside of marriage"
Not just commendable, but the best basis for a sound marriage. Both pre-marital and extra-marital sex are problematic for a sound marital basis.
Friends can't protect you from your own statements.
You can candy coat it all you want; qualifying a guy by his income at the time is as shallow as qualifying a woman by the size of her "rack." Nobody said you can't do it; they just think it's tacky.
There is *no* amount of income that can't be spent.
re your tag line: Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
do you mean your a lover of the South West U.S.?
Wise council, that. I believe I'll take it.
Star Wars
read her post #1077
Have a bit of mercy and sympathy
Eight ball, corner pocket, dude. ;^>
Neither one is shallow - they are Human Biology 101. Our subconscious minds make decisions about potential mates based on these factors and there is exactly zero point in criticizing either men or women for doing so. Attraction based on these factors is not a choice, and not something we can change by pretending they aren't important.
You're so cute with your little, balled fists, and purple cheeks ;o)
Making the man responsible is one of the reasons for state sponsored marriage.
Without a marriage license, the man should have no say over and no obligation to any child that reasults.
Or let's do away with state sponsored marriage and use DNA testing instead.
isn't this a personal attack just like you were condemning?
log in the eye syndrome??
One book I read, "In the Company of Women - Turning Workplace Conflict into Powerful Alliances explained a lot to me. After reading it I had a better understanding for the sometimes-psychotic (from male viewpoint) female workplace behavior I see, where issues that guys would resolve professionally turn into personal battles if a woman is involved
The previous post was indeed valid; if you have no problem with selecting your spouse by the amount of money he is offering you, then you should have no problem accepting that some understand that to be incredibly base and shallow -just as if some male had admitted that the size of his spouse's rack was A consideration for the marriage. Women are forever complaining when they think that a man views them as a 'piece of meat' and does not appear to care what they may possess on the inside. Yet somehow it is acceptable that a woman appears to be proud of the fact that she selected her spouse because of his pocketbook? I find that dual standard quite vexing indeed. However I am not going to post that I am Disabled So You Should Be Nice To Me. Something totally irrelevant to her stated position I must add.
better look to your own "gagging on gnats" syndrome.
Hey, have fun.
Somebody's got to date that kind, I guess.
"better look to your own "gagging on gnats" syndrome."
That's a new one on me. Would you please explain? I can't appreciate the put-down without understanding it.
I disagree. Women in other cultures do not appear to posess the same degree of mercenary glee that has been displayed with such glaring glee to date on this thread.
Not the only one. You are exactly right; a woman who wants to care for her children as they are born must feel that she can depend on her husband to support the family.
"However I am not going to post that I am Disabled So You Should Be Nice To Me. Something totally irrelevant to her stated position I must add."
she didn't do that. Her one line comment was a reply to something I had written, and I was just calling your attention to it.
Lol. Wish I still had some of the pictures, mate. I do not think you would consider them unworth of attention.
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.