If I were a betting man, I’d say $5.
How would one go about finding out if that suspicion is correct?
Men need to stay the hell away from women like that. Avoid them like the plague.
So. my stories about stick-checking my co-workers won't get me anywhere with the ladies?
Completely pointless.
What they have done is write out a series of profiles and asked women to choose from amongst them. Interesting, but it proves very little.
I don’t know much about women (what man does) but I do know one thing: What women SAY they want, and what they actually DO want, are two very, very different things.
unless your last name is clinton, or madoff
women prefer money.
DR. LAURA:
“Honey... one day you will need a man to protect you and defend you... and if you do not marry a real man... you will not have one”.
LLS
Crumb later boasted that after becoming famous he made up for lost ground, but he always retained his cynicism towards women because of his high-school experiences. By the way, Crumb is hardly anyones idea of a morally, upright person as he himself readily admitted.
That would certainly explain why guys with bad teeth and neck tattoos get laid alot.
That’s one of the problems…
I’d say that “college women” of 2008 are emotionally and intellectually *inferior* to junior-high girls of 1940.
Very naïve, despite their “education” and overall pretty hapless. Probably 35% of them would be good for a quick, easy hit - then ignore them like the other 65%.
Anyway, you might notice that the study (studies?) starts out mentioning “mates” and later muddies the water with “long term relationship” or such…
Just watch a random episode of Maury Povich and you’ll see a lot of “women” that have chosen “mates” that are *other* than their “long term relationship” as they have inexplicably become pregnant by someone *other* than their husband/fiancée, etc.
Incidentally, what cracks me up is the number of sluts that test more than *five* different guys and *still* can’t figure out who the daddy is - but I’m sure all of them were well-respected by their peers on some level.
It would be interesting to see a profile of the “university students” used in the study. It appears to have a severe sample bias.
The number one attraction in relationships is that “We are attracted toward personalities who are similar with persons who we have unresolved conflict.” It’s a soul cleansing thing. It’s the reason most women marry their father and most men marry their mother. Problem is in these relationships, when we get close enough to begin experiencing true intimacy, we are comfortable enough to allow our unresolved conflict to surface and we hate the person and have no idea why. Thus marriage can be defined as that dance where we find a comfortable distance where we can tolerate but still be close enough to be in the relationship!
The irony is that women who have conflict with their mother tend to marry submissive men while men who have conflict with their father marry submissive women. That is unless a gay relationship is intellectually acceptable, in which case they will look for the conflict personality for a relationship. Even in gay relationships, one is masculine dominate and one is feminine dominate.
I couldn’t be with a man who was more girly than me. No way.
So according to the “study” there are two kinds of guys:
Successful guys. And guys who use aggression to (try) to be successful, but who aren’t. The clear missing factoid being, the second group seems pre-defined to exclude guys, who are the combination: aggressively successful. The traditional alpha male.
No bias in that study, nope.
And it might be noted, utterly missing the fact that most guys are best at just being guys - not “networking” blue-state dweebs whose pentultimate goal in life, is winning silly contests of office politics.
Sheesh.
It’s a given.
I got my mind set on you
But its gonna take money
A whole lotta spending money
Its gonne take plenty of money
To do it right child
Its called your wallet.