TO: Amy Alkon, et al.
RE: Too Funny

A clever girl, but a bit overly involved with herself.

She needs to attend the forthcoming Mensa Annual Gathering in Denver. She'd have a wonderful time spoofing everyone.

Some guy M would probably catch on, slap her around a bit and say something like, "Who are we talking to now?"

Then he'd call for a 'crash cart', reaching for the defib paddles. Failing that, as most hotels don't have crash carts, he'd ask for a taser....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Wanna play 'doctor'?]

Mensa?!

When it comes to Mensa, I'm in agreement with this guy:

http://ask.metafilter.com/22917/Getting-into-Mensa#366350

From Mensa's website:

Annual subscription costs: $52.00 (for US membership)

Cost for Test Evaluation: $30.00

Cost for Supervised Test: $30.00

Cost for Home Test: $18.00

Mensa is kinda like Who's Who Among America's High School Students... basically a scam to get money from those pathetic, introverted individuals who need to convince others that they're really special, because they can't do it through the greatness of their actions or accomplishments.

I do have to add that I don't like him dissing introverts, who, in general, are simply people who don't thrive on being in groups of people as much as extroverts do.

Ya know for not being mind readers we men can figure out emotion and body language. When we ask whats wrong we know something is wrong, when women say nothing we let it go, after al we made the effort

Now if some woman comes up to me on a date and starts in on how she named her cats after an abotion case I'd want out after all that isnt stable behavior.

If she has an attitude about her that is just daring me to reject her I will - I dont need the fucking drama that sort of relationship would produce

If I were at a speed dating event and heard about the crazy PETA abortion cat lady who was a work aholic laywer with a doctorate in economics who just also happeded to be an astornaut, a political cominator and god knows what else I would show up either

And, on a metaphorical level, who wouldn't chose a girl who pulls off thorns instead of devoting herself to sticking them in?

And for an honest test of this hypothesis of hers, you'd have to go in as the lawyer, etc., but without all the aggression and attitude. I know human rights lawyers -- like Ben Schonbrun:

http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0509-02.htm

These are generally people who are passionate about making the world a better place, and who are excited about their work. I generally find that inspiring, and so do probably a lot of people. If you truly are a human rights lawyer, and you talk passionately about your work, men might find that attractive. Plus, passionate = into sex, perhaps?

Meant wouldn't show up

I know a fair number of men who would love to argue abortion both morally and legally (if you're reading this, hi babe!). I love love love heated debates. But: there is a time and a place. I would NEVER immediately spout off about the insanely boring investment banking products I spend my days ensuring are running properly. That just isn't an interesting way to start a conversation when you first meet someone.

After a few dates it is nice to discuss "work" even if it's not that exciting. After all, when you start to care about someone and are interested in him/her as a person it's nice to hear about what they do. But the first date (esp. the first few minutes!) is NOT the time or place to immediately discuss that. It's not that most men prefer the boring florist over the economist - it's that when she was playing the role of the economist she threw it in his face right away like he'd care. If a guy I just met started on me about his latest research project I'd go into an ADHD coma while staring blankly into space - I need to be "into him" before I can listen to something like that w/ interest. Otherwise he comes off as a poor conversationalist, boring, and unable to recognize the signs of a coma (as I'd be in one).

Her experiment was a decent idea but horribly executed and proved nothing. Well, it did prove something: that she has no idea how to conduct a real experiment.

"boring florist over the economist"

lemme rephrase: florist over the boring economist...but then again, boring is subjective. I personally think economics is far more exciting than flower arranging. It's totally subjective...but listening to a person's econometric research project is, objectively, much denser and heavier than what florists do (not putting florists down here, but you don't exactly go get your PhD and have to take advanced calc to prove formulas in flower arranging).

Ooo, Heidegger. Maybe the guy just didn't dig Nazis. Now if she had said she was reading Schopenhauer I'd've ripped her clothes off on the spot.

Great post. Just curious, is your server strong enough to survive a farking/digging/... whatever?

Hmm, Ellie Mae Clampett..

You know what men find attractive (in my experience, anyway)? A woman who is fun, alive, confident and comfortable with herself. I've never been a sylph, but have never had trouble attracting relationships when I'm in a good space with myself.

The author of the article seemed to go out of her way to be none of those.

Oooh, I would love a Farking, a Digging, a Metafiltering, and a whatever else. And yes, my server can take it!

A friend of mine is much heavier than this woman is, but she's smart, fun, kind, and has tremendous style and sex appeal, so men are always drawn to her.

P.S. Just so you know, more traffic means more $ for me from Pajamas' ads on my site. And while I love more traffic in general, and more readers of my work, more money is especially nice!

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: [OT] This 'Guy'

'Mensa is kinda like Who's Who Among America's High School Students... basically a scam to get money from those pathetic, introverted individuals who need to convince others that they're really special, because they can't do it through the greatness of their actions or accomplishments." -- Amy Alkon

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

As for his focus on 'introverts', well....it just goes to show you how ignorant he is. The Ms that go to events and organize their own Special Interest Groups are hardly what anyone in their 'right' mind would call 'introverts'.

The life of Denver Mensa is in the SIGs. One of my favorites was Social Pre-Adjustment; go to Brewery Bar II and eat their stunning green chili until the sweat rolled off our foreheads and we laughed like crazy from the endorphin rush. Then off to Social Readjustment at Spikes, or some other biker bar, for pool and beer.

The group was made up of an eclectic collection ranging from medical pathologists from a major Denver hospital, through assorted US Postal Service letter carriers, military officer and NCOs, a clerk from the Colorado Supreme Court to some guy built like Bull from Night Court and a voice like he had a double-handful of gravel in his throat...who owned a junk yard. [Note: He was the SIG coordinator for Best Bars and Derelicts. His SIG's claim to fame was that it had been thrown out of ever dive in Denver, for being too rowdy.

I helped with that on a couple of occasions. I'm particularly fond of going at it with one rabid feminist postal worker.]

Introverts? Yeah. Right....

[Note: This 'guys' credibility has some serious problems.]

RE: On Topic

The girl seems to be intelligent. But that doesn't mean she's a 'good' person. [Note: See discussion down the hall from here about Will Smith's opinion about Hitler.]

But Mensa doesn't care about your motivations.

Based on your report, she'd fit right in. And probably (1) have some fun, (2) meet people who would see through her games for who she REALLY is, (3) learn something and (4) meet the right guy for her.

After all....

....the distaff did.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. It took the distaff seven years to figure it out, though.

Gee. I see a character in Bradbury's "The Watchful Poker Chip of H. Matisse". How long as a Cellar Septet, Chuck?

"I've always been "easy,""

Yeah really? You busy tonight?

Rather than speed dating, someone needs to start a dating analog to the slow food movement. When I was separated from my wife a few years a go I could go on 3 dates and still not know if I even liked the girl. But maybe that's just me.

How terrible, really. People have enough problems dating around without others intentionally trying to ruin their encounters. I believe that it wasn't the woman's display of 'intelligence' that scared the men off, but that the men were intelligent enough to pick their battles and decided that this didn't need to be one of them.

Did it also not occur to Tanya Gold that perhaps some of those men may have been as truthful with her as she was with them? If she did and the thought outraged her (as I suspect it would), then even more shame on her. To that, what would she recommend to a group of women faced with similar circumstances? Would she heartily endorse that they go with the grouch in the corner who says he's got a PhD, or would she rather steer them towards the guy who ISN'T obviously looking for a fight that night?

Really! I would like to see the day where this bullshit 'testing' of men and women comes to an end.

"A friend of mine is much heavier than this woman is, but she's smart, fun, kind, and has tremendous style and sex appeal, so men are always drawn to her."

can you expound on this a bit, please? everything i've read, to date, in your columns and/or on your blog indicates that you believe men never want women who are fat or less than beautiful.

Truthfully trina, we dont

But men are far more pragmatic then women, generally speakng, and many of us are willing to settle

Ever wonder why women are asking why all the good guys are married?

Its becuase they might found somthing close enough to 'perfect' to make them content and stopped wasting time on people who wouldnt pay attention to them

Nah, curvy is okay. And it ain't the Proust. I worked very hard to be able to read Remembrance of Things Past in French and yet something about her still seems less than appealing. Methinks bitterness is her true enemy.

Ugh, Amy. Why do you say you're easy, as if it's a badge or something? For one thing, you just finished saying how choosy you are, so it isn't even true.

Actually, this experiment was interesting to me, although it was poorly carried out in her overacting. For one thing, in spite of her fat flaw, (which Amy was pleased to point out - in case we didn't notice it) - a very large proportion of speed dates did ask her out the second time, and not because she lost weight. I think it's because she smiled so much. I read once that the best thing you can give a man is a smile, and that's why all the models in ads (tv, not fashion) are smiling all the time. To have a beautiful woman smile at a man is so great for him! And yes, it works with beautiful men, too! I am such a sucker...

Speaking of, Chuck(le), is it true Mensa people are just that much more beautiful than other people, as well?

Ugh, Amy. Why do you say you're easy, as if it's a badge or something? For one thing, you just finished saying how choosy you are, so it isn't even true.

Donna perhaps you have what I call "received values," that it's awful to have sex right away. I don't. I'm joking about it in the way people do, but I like sex and I have it when I want it, and on the first date if I feel like it. I know that sometimes means a guy won't be interested in a second one, but as with the convo with the shrink, I know the consequences. Another way I've said it is, "I've always found it cheapest to give away sex for free."

Thanks, but don't correct how I live or how I say I live. I slept with Gregg before the official first date. I met him at The Grove, at the Apple store, we went and had Orange Crush for three hours, and then he had to go to Tunica (Mississippi) for a week. We talked on the phone that week, and when he came back, he came over to take me to dinner, but we never left my house. In short: I'm easy, and it's always worked fine for me.

You want to hold out six dates to have sex with a guy, go for it. I'm a hot blooded post-Jewish girl, and life is short, and I'm going to spend a lot of mine naked in bed (among other places).

People who are in Mensa and announce it are like people who let you know they went to Harvard, slipping it into conversation the first time you meet them.

"A friend of mine is much heavier than this woman is, but she's smart, fun, kind, and has tremendous style and sex appeal, so men are always drawn to her."

She's French and exotic, dresses as if styled by a top Hollywood costumer, and her last boyfriend was black. Black men seem to care a lot less about weight. It isn't that fat women can't ever find boyfriends, it's that they diminish their chances to a great degree.

Girls should be taught that they need to be attractive to attract the best men, and how, exactly they accomplish it, not the big lie that what's inside is "all that counts." Sure, the inside counts for a lot, but will any men get to see that if the outside isn't what they find attractive?

You get, as lujlp mentioned above, the guys who have to settle for fat girls.

We all get dealt some genetic cards and we have to do the best with them - but if possible, don't handicap your chances, girls, by being overweight.

It must be really fucking hard for people to understand or else Amy wouldn't be in business. But the rules for dating are simple: Be clean. Be nice. Have fun. Lather, rinse, repeat till you find someone who makes you want to come back.

Mensa: LOL

Another thing on Mensa: If you're intelligent, I'll know it by talking to you. You don't have to tell me you got exemplary test scores.

And regarding her alleged success with men in her florist incarnation -- two things: I'm wondering if she dressed differently (sexy instead of frumpy). Also, guys will often give a girl who seems nice the benefit of the doubt, go out with her once or twice before deciding she's got the intellect of a houseplant and they just can't do it.

I’m 49 and still find myself dating from time to time. I was married once, and figured out a long time ago that you have to be happy with yourself being single. I would have liked to get married again, but I’m not making the same mistake twice. The next time I meet someone I would consider a life long partner, I think we’ll just live together and take it one day at a time instead of falling into that mindset of being hooked at the hip forever.

I thought that as I got older, dating would get harder and I would meet fewer women. I was wrong. I seem to get a lot more interest out of women today than I ever have in my life. I’m not really sure why. It seems as thought there are a lot more women out there looking at this age than I expected. I try to keep myself looking good to some extent. I’m almost six feet tall, 200 lbs, my hair is turning gray and I’m going to leave it that way. I’ve had a lot of women tell me that I have ‘Richard Gere’ eyes. OK, I think that’s good. I have three Harleys and love to ride, best psycotherepy in the world. A lot of women like riding so I get asked to take them for a ride a lot. It's a great way to get aquianted. I also have a Bachelors of Science degree in computer science so I’m usually in a good job making decent money. The thing that women say they like most about me is my sense of humor. I get that from my mom. But the point is, that over the years, I have made some effort to look at myself as a whole package. If you don’t, how can you expect anyone else too?

Speaking of my mom’s sense of humor, here’s an example. My mom is a little old lady with an old Lincoln Towncar and the engine died in it. She saw an ad in a Pep-boys flyer for a new motor for six hundred bucks. So she called them up and asked about it. They told her that a motor for her car would be about 3200 bucks. She asked, “What about these six hundred dollar motors?” The guy at Pep-boys said, “Lady, I’ll be honest with you, you wouldn’t want one of those motors, there are made on assembly lines and about two hundred different people put their hands on those.” Mom said, “you happen to be talking to a little old lady from Detroit who knows that ALL motors are made on assembly lines, what the hell did you think, they we’re going to chisel one out just for me?” The man was speechless.

But the thing I’ve found that makes it hard for us to settle with somebody these days are the deal breakers. I don’t mean so much ‘high standards’ just standards to start with. I think some women have too many and I probably do too. Here are some of mine.

NO Drugs. I grew up around them so much, I thought Pulp Fiction was the story of my teen age years. I feel like most of the women I meet are doing something. Hell, I live in Ocean Beach, what can you expect?
NO Kids. I grew up in a family of six kids. I hated it. I had to play parent to my younger siblings and I think that soured me on kids for the rest of my life. I’m 49 and I think having kids at this age is sheer madness.
NO fat women. I just don’t find it attractive and could not crawl into a bed with a big blob. Tall women on the other hand are just fine, I’ve dated a few over six foot two and love them.
NO women who are looking for a meal ticket. They are out there.
NO married women. I get this all the time, “Oh, I’m still married but we’re legally separated and waiting for the divorce to be finalized” then you find out they’re not really legally separated yet, still living together, then it’s OH SHIT, how did I get into the middle of this. Big mistake.
NO angry women. I am just the kind of man that makes them angry. Why pour fuel on the fire?

So by the time I find the one woman in the county who doesn’t have any of my deal breaker problems, I figure out that I have one of hers. Oh well, life goes on. I think the secret to a successful love life is matching baggage. We all have our baggage, we just need to find someone with the same set.

I have to agree with you about MENSA. I had a friend try to talk me into it once, (I have over a 140 IQ which is their requirement), but I didn’t because I think people who tend to group together because of their similarities create a boring sameness. Being intelligent doesn’t necessarily make you interesting.

i just have to mention the deliciously ironic fact that mensa in spanish means stupid. in common, crude street spanish it's used to call someone a retard.

the notion of doing your best with what you've been dealt genetically - which implies that anyone (well, maybe almost anyone?) can look good enough to feel good about how they look - is much more palatable than the notion that only the perfectly skinny and beautiful will ever be wanted by anyone.

and, even having looked at the photos of tanya, i'd argue that if she were joyful instead of bitter, and if she dressed differently (did better/more with what she has), she could look good to both herself and someone else...?

but then that leaves me with a technical question, and i swear i'm not being snarky, at least not intentionally. i do genuinely wonder about this: what does a woman who puts a lot of time and energy into makeup and clothing that enhance (disguise?) her actual looks/figure -- what does she do about what i'm guessing is a vast discrepancy between her public image which wins her the man (or woman or whatever) and the way she looks in the morning when they wake up together and her make up is either completely gone (washed off before bed) or smeared all over the pillow case and/or her face and she doesn't have the schmancy costuming to cover up with?

The guy at Pep-boys said, “Lady, I’ll be honest with you, you wouldn’t want one of those motors, there are made on assembly lines and about two hundred different people put their hands on those.” Mom said, “you happen to be talking to a little old lady from Detroit who knows that ALL motors are made on assembly lines, what the hell did you think, they we’re going to chisel one out just for me?” The man was speechless.

I just love your mother.

And trina, about Mensa in Spanish, that's rich!

And you're right. If she looked like fun, like the kind of girl who's always bubbly (without being an idiot), she might attract a few guys.

I have yet to meet a guy who likes troweled-on makeup.

Not everybody can be perfectly skinny and beautiful (and not all skinny people are so hot looking) but being "bien dans sa peau," (comfortable in your skin) counts for a lot. And people who are tend to project more happiness and good feeling than people who aren't.

Ms. Gold's little experiment had one huge flaw: she impersonated an obnoxious woman and a ditz, but she didn't try the third alternative...behaving like a good conversationalist with a smart sense of humor and a bit of self-confidence.

Instead, she "proved" the theory that Men Are Assholes without examining the fact that she set up the experiment to get that result.

The one element she left out of the equation completely was kindness and decency. Men and women alike, in my experience, are looking for that above all, if they're kind and decent themselves. And if they're not, why would you want to date them?

> this book I just ordered

Ohfer Chrissake.

In about 1993, some satirical source asked its readers to what good use they'd put their hardback copies of Hawking's "Brief History of Time." Many readers reported that it was a good width for when a piece of furniture had a broken pediment, and you needed to even it up again so it wouldn't wobble. I'd used mine to jam open the northwest window of my Brentwood one-bedroom, the one just over the stereo's perch of bricks 'n boards, which brought in a nice breeze from the kitchen. I noticed that the handsomely dark-toned, never-creased paper cover resisted fading even in the Southern California daylight, which was important... Because this window was where the eye first fell when guests walked in the front door, and I wanted them to know exactly what kind of host they were dealing with. And they always did.

What, the fuck, are you going to do with "Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics"? Something for the dog, I'd wager. The pages are probably too shiny and non-absorbent for use during cleanups, but I bet they can be crumpled and put under a towel to cushion her sleep-basket or something.

> that she's not only
> overweight

I think she looks good. Women are shaped like that.

> dresses about as sexy
> as Miss Hathaway

I'm even cool with the clothes. That's a sexual shade of red, and the tailoring offers no lies about what's underneath.

The tell is in her posture:

• Her lips aren't parted for the smile in either photo.

• In the outdoor shot, her hands are poised as if for devotion, or as if one part of her interior life is handing off a payout in coins to another part; She is not thinking of her admirers, even as she looks us in the eye.

• Her feet are in the posture that white middle-class women have when their uptight parents force them to take dance classes at age 6. (We see now that the child was not destined for glissade.) I have this theory that the girls who don't outgrow this default stance are letting us know they've never really had a deep formative experience thereafter; they've maybe never changed the voltage of their relationships with their parents & teachers, or maybe never again tried to do anything interesting and challenging with their bodies. I'm kinda serious about this. The guys who played football in high school walk differently than those of us who didn't, and for the rest of their lives.

She's cute! You're right about the snotty article though. But there are a lot of people without an idea in their heads who try to make a living by writing things. Young women often fall back on snooty, feminist-seeming themes, as if to score points for being righteous. We shouldn't take it personally. Girlfriend needs to pay rent.

PS- In one of my few genuine Celebrity Encounters™, Joan Rivers buried my ass with a shitstorm of one-liners during a five-story elevator ride. Just for practice.

Okay, well I love submitting links to FARK, I'm choosy too and the metafilter/digg crowd, well bleh. (Nah, I just waste too much time at FARK, don't need more than that.)

But you may want to ask your webmaster to stick all those crazy javascripty things that allow a user to make it very easy to submit your pages to the various sites.

I asked, because well, FARK melted Glenn Sacks' server last week, and sometimes, as I've seen at other sites, there are some real cretins that come along for the ride.

I could never get through "A Brief History Of Time," but I'm doing a lot of thinking about thinking, and predispositions humans have toward irrationality lately. This is a book that was a big influence on Albert Ellis, and I've read about Korzybski for years in Ellis' work, so I ordered the book. A more consumer'y book on thinking that I read in an afternoon is Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts. I read really tough stuff all the time; I usually don't mention it.

Anytime you want to FARK something on my blog, you be my guest! Do let me know if it gets on the FARK list, and I'll ask Gregg to ask them to give us more bandwidth. It's always an option, so no big deal.

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: [OT] People....People Being People.....

"People who are in Mensa and announce it are like people who let you know they went to Harvard, slipping it into conversation the first time you meet them." -- Amy Alkon

Sounds like people who tell you, first time you 'meet' them, you're a syndicated columnist.

But, actually, Amy, you didn't find out about my membership in Mensa until some character challenged my mental capabilities on your blog-site.

So I asked them to show me their Mensa membership number.

Ever since then, the people here suffering from low-self-esteem over mental capabilities seem to want to hammer me. Just like the ones with low-self-esteem vis-a-vis courage like to try to hammer me because it came out I did time in the Army as an airborne-ranger.

Whose problem is this? Mine? Hardly....

But it is kind of nostalgic....seeing the same sophomoric tripe I've seen 40 years ago, in high school.

So, Amy. Are you 'ashamed' of what you are?

Why should I be?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Nobody lights a candle and hides it under a bushel. -- Some Wag, around 2000 years ago.]

P.S. Isn't it interesting that despite all your complaining about my capabilities, I don't spend nearly as much time expressing my low opinion of yours.

P.P.S. Anytime you want to get back ON-TOPIC, it's fine with me.

Or we can start talking about you.....

Sounds like people who tell you, first time you 'meet' them, you're a syndicated columnist.

Chuck, we've never met.

Oh, I see, 'meet' them.

What do you suggest I do, title my site "Anonymousbroad.com"?

can we not let this chuck guy derail this conversation?

despite her poorly carried out experiment, i think tanya does have a point. i think there are indeed a lot of men out there who are intimidated by women who are smart, assertive and dynamic. (now is the time for lots of people to tell me otherwise...)

so far, in my own life, i've observed and experienced it quite often. i have a dear male friend who had a domineering, critical, controlling mother and as a result he cuts and runs at the slightest display of female power. it has cost him some awesome girlfriends. maybe therapy would fix his issues or maybe he just needs to be with a woman who is meeker than he..?

in my own life, my latest burly rock climing boyfriend made for a great climbing partner and adventure mate, but it was such a continual source of ego-bruising for him to be with a woman who is smarter and generally more dynamic than he. he flat out told me he was afraid of me, intimidated by me, and it was really a huge issue when i beat him at scrabble. having my man be intimidated by me is extremely unappealing.

there's an unspoken "truth" in the rock climbing world which is that women don't want to date men who can't climb harder than them. you gotta be burlier than yer girl. me, i'd be happy just to be MATCHED by my man in terms of gusto, joy, energy, assertiveness so that i don't out-assert, frighten and intimidate my partner just by being smart and sassy, full of mischief and eager to suck the marrow out of the bones of life. someone please tell me there are men out there who don't find all of that SCARY.

i think tanya does have a point. i think there are indeed a lot of men out there who are intimidated by women who are smart, assertive and dynamic.

Sure there are, but the answer isn't wishing those men death. It's just realizing that it may be a little harder to find a boyfriend if you're smart, assertive, and dynamic...and even harder if you bring "assertive" into your relationship.

By this I don't mean you should be some pushover. But, that being a demanding bitch isn't going make a man love you. I'm writing about that this weekend. Women make a big mistake by telling a man what to do. Men tend to find this emasculating. If you want a man to do something, you ask diplomatically, in a way that doesn't make him feel wrong or like a failure.

If you're truly powerful and secure you don't have to be Fidel Castro in your relationship. It's the weak ones who put on a show of strength who do that.

If you want a man to do something, you ask diplomatically, in a way that doesn't make him feel wrong or like a failure.

can you give some examples of what you mean, pleez?

"Honey, I'm having the worst time finding my something or other in the garage. Do you think you could help me?"

As opposed to, "The garage is a total mess. You need to clean up all that crap you've amassed."

You let a guy help you solve a problem and come to the conclusion himself about what needs to be done, and then take action. Now, if he doesn't come to that conclusion, perhaps you need to revisit the issue, but again, without kneecapping him in the ego, and making him feel bad -- like he's failed.

This isn't the best example, but I'm in a rush because I have a work deadline in half an hour. If somebody else can come up with something they want their boyfriend or husband to do, post it and I'll do the translation.

Oh, in short, you don't get a man to take action by making him feel like a disappointment to you. And men tend to bristle at being given orders.

About Women and makeup.

Showgirls in Vegas wear it for 'somebody'.
Can't be the women in the crowd. According to you, it can't be the men,either.
So, who is it for? Them?

Glamour Magazines "Trowel it on" their cover girls. Playboy "trowels" it on theirs too.
Are you saying both magazines play for the same market?
Ergo, "Somebody" is indeed attracted to the Heavy Make Up look. Maybe it is just a small, but very influential group of Magazine Cover Photographers?

I think many men prefer women to like neatly & prettily madeup. But, in todays world, none will admit it. On the other hand, NO woman ever misses an opportunity to point out how "badly" another woman's make is applied, or how they "think" it makes her look.
Of Course, maybe their Husbands/boyfriends/SO's are admiring a woman who is confident enough to go out Made Up!

The days of the "Au Natural" woman are long past.
And Good Riddance.
(and yes, I do dress up when we go out. Tie , wingtips and all)

so, davis, how does your woman handle the make up issue when it comes to going to bed/getting tousled/waking up together? how do you feel about how differently she looks when she's dolled up for the hot date vs. The Morning After?

I wear piles of makeup on TV, too. You need to be able to see somebody's features properly when they're on stage or on camera.

Guys tend to be turned off by a woman who, in day-to-day life, looks like she's going on camera or dancing in a Vegas chorus line.

Women on magazine covers, ads, etc., are heavily retouched -- so you can't tell how heavily made up they are. If you ever see, for example, Cameron Diaz, on a magazine cover, she won't look like she's ever had a pimple in her life. And I believe she's had lifelong trouble with acne.

I'm not suggesting women go makeup free, but there's a line between looking put-together and looking like the man in the big purple Escalade will be around for you any minute to take you to your next...client.

The days of the "Au Natural" woman are long past.

are not. are not. are not. i mountain bike, ski, rock climb, ice climb, camp, backpack, etcetera. make up makes no SENSE in any of those activities. i have naturally curly, thick hair and long, dark eyelashes. boyfriends have said they couldn't tell when i had mascara on or not so i don't bother. i do shave my legs and pits and wear deodorant and perfume. i love getting dolled up but it doesn't involve make up, just sexy clothes. when i had a schmancy museum job i wore make up for work, for board meetings, for art openings, for gallery dinners, etc., but since i dropped out of that world and became a mail carrier, now i'm outside all day and i walk 10 miles a day on my route. i don't wear make up for that, but still i get asked out or complimented on my looks or whistled at weekly.

I do not go out in sweatpants, etc. -- I'm basically always dressed, and often dressed to the nines just to go to a cafe to write, because I love dressing up. But, I'm not necessarily more attractive with lots of makeup on; in fact, I can be less attractive. I always wear pink lipstick when I go out, at the very least. (And sunblock and a fine dusting of translucent powder over that.)

How cool, trina, that you're a mail carrier. I bet you have a great ass.

and legs.

interesting that you say you can be less attractive w/make up. i had a boyfriend who was an artist and we were always going to openings and hoity-toity events where we'd get all dressed up - when i put make up on for one and asked his opinion about it, he said he preferred me without. he also bemoaned the fact that i lost a pants size when i became a mail carrier. he liked me curvier and ever so slightly plump.

ugh. sorry to "go all ME ME ME" on you. my point is simply that natural can be beautiful - and i think natural is MORE beautiful than hoochie mama.

I'm with Crid: I think she's cute. Okay, I'll be honest. I look like Tanya (my skirts tend to be shorter, though, because I have great legs), so I'm going to stick up for her to a certain extent. As someone else said, it's too bad she didn't complete her experiment and tried "fun and smart" because from my own experience that's a winner with men, too.

Trina & Amy
I'll admit there are times and places for evrything. And, Yeah waking up in the morning, nobody is at their best. Not a problem.
I said "I prefer" that look.
I don't expect 'showgirl' looks while rock climbing.
But, neither of you addressed my point.
In fact you are both afraid to adress it, being so caought up in your Me,Me,Me screeds.

If not for men, OR women, then who?
A secret cabal of magazine & TV execs who like their woman that way?
I still say there a largish number of men who tell their woman the like the "Natural" look, when, in fact they do not. They are just going along, to get along.
This might explain the current intrest by guys in Amy Winehouse. It is not because of her singing....

Another thing to hate about this is that it completely discounts the power of vibes. She deceived one batch of guys and got one result that she didn't like. Then she deceived another batch of guys and got another result she didn't like. Yes, certainly: The guys were all working an angle too, and a setting like that is going to be fraught and insincere. But almost by definition, speed-dating isn't a good sample of a person's company.

I did address is, davis, you just didn't pay attention. Women on magazine covers often do not look overly made up because they are airbrushed. Their foundation doesn't look troweled on - the don't look like they're wearing foundation.

Men like women to look pretty, beautiful, and sexy. Makeup is supposed to conceal flaws and highlight beauty. When there's so much makeup that it's the first thing a guy notices, this is bad.

Oh yeah, and I do have to add...Me! Me! Me! Me! (I was feeling starved for attention.)

Did address IT, I mean.

Sorry.

ME! ME! ME!

There, feel much better now.

Women's magazines are also designed to sell products...to women. That includes makeup.

"...you don't get a man to take action by making him feel like a disappointment to you. And men tend to bristle at being given orders."

I assume that this truth is gender neutral in a romantic relationship between healthy individuals (excluding consensual sex games). Does what you have read (or encountered in the letters people send you) suggest that this approach is generally well received by women?

The other night, at a Christmas party, I met a dermatologist who looked like the actress Jane Adams -- to me, a turn-on.

Not just trying to make nice, but generally interested, I asked her all sorts of stuff: where she went to school, how long extra for the specialty (and why); dividing her practice between public and private hospitals; etc. She answered 'em all, interestingly.

When she asked about me, I changed the subject back to her. Not that I have anything to hide; it's just that I'm not all that fascinating.

No matter. At the earliest opportunity, she excused herself. And I hadn't even got around to showing her my rash!

It's rough out there...

Does what you have read (or encountered in the letters people send you) suggest that this approach is generally well received by women?

Many women seem not to understand this, or they're just too impatient to hold back and do things the way that preserves the guy's ego and the relationship...which, in the long run, costs them.

Gregg does tell me what to do, and that's fine; in fact, I appreciate it. Now, he isn't micromanaging my entire life. But, there are certain areas I need help in. I have ADHD, am bad at figuring out when I should leave to get someplace, and find driving in traffic nightmarish. He told me I needed to leave at 3:30, and he was right. And he tells me other stuff like that that I really appreciate. And I ask him to pick what I'm going to have for dinner if we're in a restaurant. Now, I've been choosing my own dinners for a lot of years. But, I realized early on that whatever he ordered was always better than what I ordered. He'll figure out what I'll like better than I will, so why not let him?

Not all women are comfortable with a man telling them what to do. I don't feel insecure or powerless, so I find it relaxing to have Gregg pitch in when he knows better than I do.

Since he's a man, if I have to tell him something (for example, "I hate that shirt, never wear it again"), I instead say something about how the shirt is "okay," but he looks great in his blue shirts. He gets the message. And if I want him to do something for me, I ask him sweetly, I don't tell him to do it. (He has a mother, and I'm not her.) With a little extra effort -- beyond what it takes to just snap orders at somebody -- you can have a really nice relationship with somebody.

If a man at a speed-dating session were to act the way Tanya did, I'd go running for the hills. I'm successful and over-educated, and I like successful, educated men, but if my date started off the conversation the way she did, I'd think he was confrontational, bitter and arrogant.

I guess what I'm saying is that women also hate insufferable asses.

"Women don't want to believe it -- and I get fired from papers every time I say it -- but men, by and large, except for a few chubby chasers, don't want fat girls."

I think it's odd that a significant number of women would feel annoyed at reading the above and want to retaliate against you for stating it. Why exactly do women have so much difficulty with the reality that the vast majority of men prefer slender women? Just about any woman can lose excess weight and improve her appearance. If a woman does so, her life will be all the better for it. However, a man's social status and economic position are subject to the vagaries of luck and fate, and he can do little about his height. When it comes to improving their attractiveness to the opposite sex, women seem to have it far better than men.

To add to Jamie's comment, when you tell men that women prefer tall, attractive men who are financially stable and successful (the last by far being the most important), with the exception of a few loud whiners, most all men will understand and agree. It may not be fair but it is what it is. Most would respond with 'yeah, and it sucks' and lament their lack of social standing but few men (maybe none) would be clamoring to have the Advice Goddess culled from the local rag. I have to agree--men are much more pragmatic. I wonder what the source of this disconnect is?

Doc, I suspect you're correct when you say that men are much more pragmatic about this issue (and perhaps others). Why exactly is this?

I wondered about this for an embarrassingly long time until I came across this post, written on Usenet:


Since men have experience trying to woo women in real life, most guys who aren't incredibly stupid figure out pretty quickly which
women are completely out of their league. Men might hit on women out of their league anyway, but they know their chances of success are remote.

Women, on the other hand, almost never hit on men in real life. So they come to dating sites with almost no concept of how attractive
they are to men in general. They assume that any man is just as likely as any other to find them attractive. Usually when a woman talks to a man in a courtship context, it's because he
approached her, which means he wants to have sex with her. Women therefore get the potentially mistaken idea that all men want to
have sex with them.


The same writer also wrote this:


How many women have you overheard saying, "That man finds me sexually worthless"? Typically a woman rationalizes away a man's lack of interest by saying he is commitment-phobic, or he is a man who "cannot love," or he's gay, or he "has issues," etc. How many women state the obvious: "I'm just not attractive to most men"?

The weird thing is that lots of women are well aware that they have physical flaws; a few women might even understand that they have personality flaws. But few women seem able to understand what a given level of flawed-ness translates into.

That book "He's Just Not That Into You" was like a great intellectual leap for women, as if many women did not even have the concept that a man might not want to have sex with them (or keep having sex with them). Women have been sold the huge lie that every woman is equally entitled to the same storybook relationship with her dream man. And women generally believe it because they don't hit on guys and get rejected hundreds of times.

Do you think anybody needs to write a book "Dude: Chicks Don't Dig You"? "Dudes" already know they don't get much love from most chicks.

All that's true, but it's masculine nature to shrug your shoulders and try again tomorrow no matter what... Even if you're a poor, fat guy who was trying to score outside your league. Even if you struck gold the night before. Even if you got married the night before.

Everything after "Usenet" should have been italicized, as it was all written by one Usenet poster. I made an error when putting up that last comment.

Amy, you are so good at turning a phrase, and suggesting alternate ways of behavior or communication, as you just showed in how to ask someone to do something, that perhaps this is just a semantic disagreement.

Let me point out that it is you who refers to yourself as easy. There is no positive meaning to that word as used about either a woman or a man, which is why I dislike it. As you describe yourself, I'd say you like to make your own choices about when to have sex with someone. Now that's positive!

As far as counting dates with a man, I've always been bad with numbers...

Yeah, I've reclaimed it, like I've reclaimed "bitch." And I think being easy is a much better choice -- for me -- than being difficult. But, I think the truth is that you took issue with it -- the behavior, not just the word.

Crid: true that! I think this is the same reason a couple of guys can literally be beating the shit out of each other one moment and an hour latter be buying each other beers, each insisting he was the cause of the fight. Note that this not always true and mileage may vary; however, the key word here is pragmatic. A man may not like another man but it really takes so much less effort to just be friendly and drink PBRs together than to carry on a grudge.

Jamie: again, true that! Being single, there have been women who were, er, less than attractive (both in personality and physical appearance) who were under the impression that just because they were willing to spread their legs I would be instantly attracted to them. They were less than pleased with my response (or lack thereof). Hell hath no fury and all. And this was me trying to be kind but firm that I was not interested! Women by and large have no idea what a psychological kick to the man-biscuits it is to be scornfully rejected. However, it is a great lesson that life is not fair and the sooner one sheds illusions otherwise the better. Indeed, with more women entering the dating pool as the seeker, and not the sought, some small degree of equality will emerge. As Amy has pointed out in the past, there are an increasing number of men (myself included) who are fairly tacit about dating, dropping out of the dating pool, and refusing to engage in a feminist-inspired 'battle of the sexes' (i.e. refusing to date belligerent bitches like Tonya Gold). And I don’t mean ‘bitch’ like Amy is saying al a ‘Why Men Love Bitches’ (by Sherry Argov), ‘bitch’ here meaning a woman who is decisive, appropriately assertive and self-empowered and not abrasive and acrimonious like Ms. Gold.

But I talk too much. [Stepping off soapbox and putting down Miller Light]

Happy New Year (or 幸福な新年 in Japanese)!

Great to have you back, Doc.

And to answer your earlier question, I think feminism is partly to blame (why women get me fired from papers for saying men don't like fat women). It promotes the silliness that men "should" like you for what's within, based on a lack of understanding of biology, and the ensuing idea that male and female behavior is taught, not genetically driven.

Speed dating? Cringe. I can't imagine how this works for anyone but to each their own. I don't see myself ever employing this technique to meet a man but why would I try to prevent those who want to try it from doing so? Maybe they just get a big kick out of meeting a large number of potentials quickly. That was her first problem. She was out to get speed dating period -- just because it's not her cup of tea. And, yes, it was as stupid as trying to make someone drink coffee instead of tea because that's your bag. To each their own. I don't get it either but if no one was interested in speed dating, it'd die in the marketplace. They are and they harm no one so leave it the hell alone and just don't buy if it don't appeal to you.

That was her problem number two. She purposely marketed herself as unappealing then was surprised that no one bought the product in the soiled, ugly, unappealing brown wrapper. Then she consulted advertising experts and packaged the product right and was surprised when the product was picked up? Is she for real or what? But then again she is buying the frumpy clothes instead of pretty... so maybe she just doesn't get why packaging works on others and not her? (Though I notice she does wear makeup.)

As far as what attracts men: When I was in my 20's, I had an hourglass figure and wore some makeup and had money for the latest fashions etc. and turned heads. In my 30's, single parenthood took a toll. I gained weight and couldn't afford a new wardrobe every year. In fact, I often had to buy ugly clothes I hated to provide for my daughter before myself. I've recently lost between 70 and 80 pounds and I quit wearing the makeup in my 30's. But I am what I expect a guy to be: neat and clean and with something between his ears not to mention a sense of humor.

I noticed two things in my 30's when my daughter was growing up that still seem to hold true as I turn 50. 1. the kid's a turn-off. No one approaches when the kid (daughter or grandson) is around. 2. A smile is the best make-up in the world. When I was in a good, self-confident mood with my head held high and a smile on my face even when I was heavy in dumpy clothes and overweight in my 30's, I still turned heads. When I was in a bad mood, feeling very poor me and hating the world for the situation I put myself in and hence scowling at it, men stayed the hell away and I don't really blame them. (I had some bitterness to work out, believe me.)

Now my hair's half gray and I too refuse to dye but that's because I'm proud of my age (c'mon, I'm about to turn nifty-fifty) because it says something about the length of road I have traveled and because I've lived and learned from living life day to day. I've lost a good deal of the weight and still have some to go (a little more than half-way to my goal) but my attitude is improved and I'm turning heads.

The biggest thing I wonder about men is where are all these supposedly committment phobic guys? It seems we wind up breaking up eventually because I am very committment phobic and they get to a place where they want to marry or live together. No effing way! I am very envious of Amy's relationship with Gregg. That's my idea of an ideal relationship. And what she says about how you ask something just makes sense. Which guy would I most respond to one who orders or one who suggests? A guy orders me around, he's gone. I'll listen to someone who shows concern and makes a suggestion. Why should we expect guys to react any differently?

In short, a smile is the best beauty secret for man or woman. I know nothing melts me more than dimples and, if they're accompanied by a pleasant remark, I'm putty. It mystifies me when women want this from a man but treat men like they've no right to want the same from us. Someone mentioned Richard Gere above. I'm a big fan of the Howard Stern show and Artie Lange is a hoot but if I got to pick between him and pretty boy Richard...

Donna, you sound very wise.

And about my relationship with Gregg, I spent a lot of years not partnering up with anybody while looking to meet a guy who had what I was looking for.

A tip for girls: Little old ladies are the seers of dating. They can look at a guy and tell you whether he's a "keeper" or not. The little old ladies from the old folks home next to my favorite cafe always tell me "You hang onto him, sister" (meaning Gregg) and my grandma did as well. He's just an old lady magnet.

And he great to his mom. A more well-known clue to character.

I was walking around downtown pheonix behind these two women. The slender one said life wasnt fair but "it is what it is" when her fat, not heavy but fat, freind said it doesnt matter people needed to get over physical apperance.

I couldnt help but interject, I said I agreed with her and people should get over the trivial stuff and focus on what was on the inside, Ithen pointed out a homeless man taking a nap under a bus bench and sugggested she ask him out on a date.

The expression on her face was priceless
Just LOOK at him, was what she blurted out

Isnt it amazing how pointing out someone lower on society popularity pole they suddenly drop their demands that everyone 'be fair'

Everyone has had some good input on this subject, so I'm just going to add a coupla cents to it. I have found that in both men and women, a sense of satisfaction with themselves is very attractive. When people are at ease with themselves, they are at ease with others. As I once told a dear friend of mine, who was constantly anxious about whether she would ever find a boyfriend or a husband, "Listen honey, lighten up and take care of yourself. The right guy will come along, but if you're radiating desperation and neediness, he's going to keep on going! Desperation is NOT pretty."

I think feminism is partly to blame

Amy, I'm still waiting to see what you *don't* blame on feminism.

I can think of a few novels that predate the 20th century feminist movement by at least a hundred years where the plain-but-plucky heroine wins the affection of the Gentleman In Question. And I was raised with such homilies as "beauty is only skin deep," and "it's what's inside that counts" even as recently as the 1960's.

I blame feminism for my beer gut. *sniff*

I'm not saying it's justified or anything, but it's still they're fault, not mine.

I think that people in the past, despite the sayings to make the homely ones feel better, always had a sense of realism, that the plain daughter wouldn't marry well.

Feminism -- what feminism has become, anyway -- promotes a sense of entitlement, and the idiotic idea that men and women are the same, and male sexuality is thus wrong...that men are evil for having visually based sexuality...and that it's not simply a function of differing male biology. Different, but not wrong.

Feminism isn't, for example, to blame for meth use or the spread of radical Islam. But, it does plenty of damage by taking an irrational view of human nature, based not in biology, but in wishful thinking that the Andrea Dworkins of the world would be just as hot to men as the Salma Hayeks, etc.

As lujlp points out above, when's the last time the "beauty comes from within" wimmin went for homeless guys?

(Female biology, of course, directs women to go for providers, and to care less about looks...which is why you see beautiful young models out with scary little old men.)

"...it's still they're fault.."

I blame feminism for my lazy grammar, too! ;-)

Amy, the "biology" argument is selective and only goes so far. "Biology" should be telling you to pop out a baby a year, but I see you've managed to circumvent the bits of biology that don't work for you.

Regarding a sense of entitlement, it's not like that's exclusively a female preserve either. I've seen plenty of men, when turned down (even quite nicely) by a woman who may be out of their league (or just not interested) respond with "stuck up bitch!" rather than, "oh well, life's not fair."

"I've seen plenty of men, when turned down (even quite nicely) by a woman who may be out of their league (or just not interested) respond with "stuck up bitch!""

Wow. Where do you hang out?

Male sexuality is visual. That's not something that's variable, far as I can see. Sure, there are variations within male sexuality, but the visual thing is the same across cultures, whether there's television or not.

And when I "circumvent" biology, how do you know that isn't biology at work as well? I can't make myself want a homeless man, or a guy lacking in ambition. Guys, on the other hand, will hook up with girls who just want to be married to a guy with a paycheck or who work in a nail salon until they meet said guy -- not that there's anything wrong with that. Extraordinarily powerful men marry cocktail waitresses. It generally doesn't work the other way around. Powerful women want more powerful men. It's biology.

Again, are there exceptions. Sure. Generally speaking, men going for youth and beauty and women going for power/status/providers is the rule.

Wow. Where do you hang out?

In my 20's, I had a good friend who was drop-dead gorgeous. Think young Michelle Pfeiffer as a redhead. I witnessed this scenario multiple times when we were out on the town. The guys might not say it to her face, but mutter under their breath or corner me on my way to the ladies room and ask, "why is your friend such a bitch?" And she was a really nice person, never got snotty with anyone unless they were really drunk and/or obnoxious.

That's unfortunate, Deja

I think experiences like that would have 'cured' my desire to go out at all.

So what your saying, deja, is your freind is as shallow as most guys for rejecting men without 'getting to know them'?

Cause if that is not what you are saying then you are promoting a double stanndard wherin men have no right to rejcet arbitrarily or get upset when rejected bbut women do

deja pseu has a point. The male side of this is the "why don't women like nice guys" argument. It's the belief that you can be a drooping sadsack of a loser, but if your heart is good, you'll snare a supermodel. None of them are interested in the plain-but-fun girl they really have a shot at. I'm sure you've seen plenty of these types, Amy.

There's a general and widespread sense of entitlement today, of which feminism is just one example. The signal attribute is that people deserve all the good things in life, just because. And it's making a lot of people unhappy. Happiness comes from what you do and what you are, not from what comes to you, in my opinion.

lujlp, I'm not *promoting* anything, or defending the author of the article Amy posted. I'm just saying that there are overblown senses of entitlement on both sides of the aisle.

I'm also saying that there were men and women out there with overblown senses of entitlement (or at least the with desire to mate out of their league) long before the feminist movement.

Frankly, it was a combination of feminism and seeing how badly my mother fared financially after my parents' divorce (she'd been an SAHM for 17 years) that made me determined to be my own provider. So I've never been that swayed by guys with a lot of money; I was focused more on finding someone who made me laugh and shared my values. I was lucky enough to find him about 15 years ago.

The whole, women don't like to be told that they should stop being fat thing is interesting to me.
I don't know why we are surprised that it pisses people off to hear that you're never going to be happy because you have too much cellulite on your ass. In a society where young girls are raised on such films as Cinderella, Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, shall I go on? How can we be surprised that women are all expecting their very own "Happily Ever After."

(And I know, being fat is a "choice" but for some people it is a choice between being fat and permanantly starving themselves http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/08/healthscience/snfat.php?page=1)

I bet though, a lot of the women who are really upset by what Amy is saying, probably aren't really that fat. I mean, if I had two cents for every time I had to listen to some not fat girl talk about how fat she is I'd have my own island filled with hottie cabana boys by now.

I truly think that there is an unrealistic standard of beauty going on in this country. Along with an unrealistic standard of "committed relationship = lifelong happiness."

You may blame feminism... I blame Disney.

I try to dispel the myth that men "should" like you simply for your personality or that they're somehow bad people if they don't. I explain how male sexuality works -- it's visual. And it isn't just a question of weight: If you want to attract men, you need to be as attractive as possible. You'll have the best choice of men that way.

You can choose not to optimize how you look -- but you should understand that it will likely diminish your options.

Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, and women's magazines aren't to blame - they reflect our biology, and men's propensity for young, beautiful women (what we consider beauty being reflective of health and fertility, and the ability to pass on a man's genes).

Those fairy tales were around long before Disney took them over. I spent far too much time reading those as a kid, and I must admit, they left me with a somewhat warped perspective on how life should be. I wasted a lot of time in my teen years wondering why the whole ugly duckling to swan things didn't just happen. Took a long time to figure out that it doesn't just happen....you make it happen!

When women giggle, its the universal signal for a man that she likes him.

After chatting online for some time, my wife and I first talked on the phone, and despite being woman who ran 40% of a half billion dollar firm's operations, she still giggled like a girl, and afterwards, felt like a fool for doing so. Even today she is embarassed about it.

I had no idea what she looked like, but given her personality, intelligence, quickness, and fire, I'd have settled for something far less than what walked up to me from the bar. ( Even though she had carefully dressed to hide her appeal, I was still stunned. )

But, had she been overweight or not well-groomed, I would have stayed friends, but not more than that.

She has said the same to me, and despite being giddy and giggly that night, she was judging me ever more harshly. After all, that was her job at work.

Women need to realize that a good man will have just as high standards as you do. Your personal appearance reflects your character as much as your commitment to your job or your intellect.

Working out, knowing how to communicate with a good person, dressing right, and having a good attitude are unversally attractive. Once these basics are in place, then the real fun can begin.

Wow, Amy! Thanks. That meant a lot coming from someone I looked up on the internet because I liked her advice in our local free weekly.

It works both ways but sometimes, deja, psychology overrides biology. You're different because you watched your mom suffer. I like short men but have always suspected it's because my father was short and my mother tall. He'd try to beat her but she'd hit back (about the only two good lessons I thank her for is that and encouraging reading) and it was a draw. I think weirdly as a result, I feel safer with short men. Oddly enough, they aren't as drawn to me. The guys I've dated (with one exception and there was no chemistry though we're still great friends) were all my height or taller (though at 5'6" my height is short for a guy). I know in my head that's an illusion and a short guy can be every bit as dangerous as a tall one but I still like short guys (Richard Gere and Neil Diamond excepted).

I think it's important to note that we're also talking about the initial attraction here (with speed dating all you'd get is a first impression). These things could change when you get to know a person. The hunk could be as wacko as Tom Cruise and the plain overweight guy could be your perfect soul-mate. (Though I'd doubt the homeless guy or gal would. Frankly, there's got to be some bit of having your act together.)

A note on generalizations -- quoting my friend Satoshi Kanazawa, from a phone interview I did with him...

SATOSHI: "Evolutionary psychology as a science is not yet at the level of experimental physics. We can’t explain everybody. We only explain the general patterns. And the average man. So there are many, many men who like small breasts, including yours truly, so I can’t claim that theories explain everybody. (As for the guy who likes androgynous women)…I would say he’s an exception. …Theories are generalizations."

Her best line was "Let's not talk about me". In my experience, men (and often women) want to talk about themselves. So, if you listen well, people usually think you're charming, witty, kind, rich and great looking.

A lawyer, a doctor, a florist... I wonder what kind of results she may have encountered had she tried being herself?

"As lujlp points out above, when's the last time the "beauty comes from within" wimmin went for homeless guys? "

Are you seriously equating a few pounds of junk in the trunk with being homeless?

People become homeless as a result of mental illness and/or substance abuse. That heavyset woman was not being shallow when she reacted with horror at the idea of dating a schizo/druggie/wino, she was acting like a rational person. If she'd rejected dating a heavyset man, that would have been shallow.

I'm old enough to remember when people still said things like: "you can't judge a book by it's cover" and "beauty is as beauty does" and "beauty is only skin deep". It seems over the last 30 years or so, our culture has gotten ridiculous on the subject of looks.

I'm not saying men should date women they find replusive, but I'm sick and tired of men with guts hanging over their belts whining about how much they hate fat chicks, and jokers who haven't bought new clothes or changed their hairstyles since the Clinton Administration complaining that stylish women won't give them the time of day.

Amy,

The Guardian woman has to to seek help. Dr. Ellen Kenner has a radio show called Rational Basis of Happiness.

Here is an excerpt from my post, WRITING DOWN NEW RESOLVING THOUGHTS.

Relationships:
Keeping in touch with friends from my trips to around the world, e.g., Hungary. Down the road - when all the "pieces of the puzzle" are in place - searching for the right one... [Editor's note: Maybe I will find my future romantic partner on the dance floor? I have "two left feet," but I want to take dance lessons someday... I got very inspired by the documentary on Herräng Dance Camp.]

All the Best,

Martin Lindeskog - American in Spirit.
Gothenburg, Sweden.

So, manipulatively pretending to be a type of female which attracts 20% of men works better than manipulatively pretending to be a type of female which attracts 0% of men. Who could have predicted that?

"As lujlp points out above, when's the last time the "beauty comes from within" wimmin went for homeless guys? " Are you seriously equating a few pounds of junk in the trunk with being homeless?

I meant it as shorthand for "having no money."

As for men with big fat guts, if they're rich men with big fat guts, women will line up to date them. And men will line up to date gorgeous women who make minimum wage in nail salons.

RE: Deja's comments on male entitlement, I had a male friend in the mid '90s who claimed to have been brushed off by Cindy Crawford. I would not have believed he'd ever met or even seen her in person except that he complained about it so vehemently. The word "bitch" also popped up several times. I pointed out that she was married, and that she was a celebrity probably tired of being annoyed by ratty boys like himself, and that he would have had no place to take her after a date because he was still living at home with his mother. I don't think he heard any of it.

Has it occurred to this Einstein that "human rights lawyer" is code for "drooling left wing lunatic", and that would scare away any guy with a three digit IQ?

GREAT discussion. I have only one thing (hopefully interesting) to add, and it's about the whole "men find women who are [smarter/stronger/faster/whatever] than they are intimidating." Of course, you can't generalize, but generally, a man who's confident in himself, with a healthy self-esteem, will probably not be daunted by a woman whose prowess exceeds his in some areas. That being said, maybe it's when the woman's prowess exceeds his in his OWN area of expertise that freaks guys out. My husband defers to me in matters of politics, how much we have in the bank, educational choices for the kid, and lots of other stuff. He's good at fixing computer problems, but I'm better at the various programs we use, for instance. But I'm not a mechanic, and I'm not good at plumbing, woodworking, electrical repair, and all that stuff - if it has moving parts, he can fix it. If I were as good as him at that sort of stuff, it might make him feel threatened. But you know what? That's just one of those guy things. It's not a failing, it's just a feature of the standard model, and you can't blame them for it.

That's my particular pet peeve among the harmful effects of feminism - the idea that women and men are basically the same, and that the differences are cultural, not natural - nurtured versus natured. I don't believe that. I think that women and men are wired differently, and you just have to except that. Then again, I likely guy-y guys.

Men who are attracted to androgynous women? That's one thing that turns me off to no end.

Another mom story here.

My mom is old and had polio as a child so now she has post polio syndrome in her old age which breaks down to having bad joints. I got her a membership at a local health club which was pretty much older folks so she could go there and soak in the hot tub which made her feel a lot better. She call's me up one saturday morning and says, "Thats it! I am Never, Never cutting my hair short as long as I live!" I said what's wrong, she said, "Nothing pisses me off more than talking to someone in the hot tub with short hair and not knowing whether it's a man or a woman! And further, it's downright scary when they get out of the tub and you still can't tell!" Ok mom, stop, your ruining my breakfast.

Just discovered your blog. Love the way you write.

And I love your perspective. Bookmarked ya.

The archtypical male such as Americanus Robustus is not off put by intelligent women. She might be able to ponder Proust, or haggle over Hegel, but likely as not she can't fix a flat tire. And even if she can, she shouldn't have to. No matter what feminists claim, women still prefer a man who opens doors and performs the myriad other courtesies that a gentleman does by habit. Americanus R. is easy to spot because his speech is punctuated with archaic words like "sir" and "ma'am". He is usually taciturn until you get to know him, often answering complex questions with "someone had to" or "it needed doin'". He meets his superiors eye-to-eye, and to his inferiors he is polite even in the face of abject stupidity. His vices can be erased by a toothbrush, a hot shower, and twelve hours of sobriety. Women folk need to reacquaint themselves, especially advice columnists, with what it means to be a man. Americanus Robustus is alive and well, and more numerous than you imagine.

Bikerken, did your mom ever consider that maybe the short-haired woman in the hot tub had been battling cancer and lost her hair due to chemo?

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: On Meetings

"Chuck, we've never met." -- Amy Alkon

Earlier in this thread you're alluding to me trotting out my membership the first time you read one of my posts.

And you couched it in terms of 'the first time we met'.

So. I recollected that your web-site comments about how you're so proud of being a columnist.

Now, when I mention that, you say we've never 'met'.

Well....physically....no; we haven't.

The only way we've met is via the internet. And you're obfuscating......as I would expect of any 'journalist'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive.]

TO: trina lindsey
RE: Easily!!!!!

"can we not let this chuck guy derail this conversation?" -- trina lindsey

And I agree.

Can we PUHLEASE get back ON TOPIC???!??!?

I'm tired of talking about me.

Heck. Ever since I suggested that this lady look into Mensa as a source for her 'cure', you [Amy], and your ilk, have been trying to hammer me, just because I'm a member of Mensa and think she would fit in to that 'interesting' group.

I offer a cure for her woes and I'm 'damned' for it?

Hooooow niiiiiiice.....

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. Regarding our ever having 'met'....

....the way you wear your hair in the photo (upper left-hand corner) reminds me of something that scared my second daughter (age 1.5) half out of her mind when a friend of Ex-#2 showed up for a Halloween Party.

If you consider that justification for 'killing' me....so be it. But it IS the 'truth'. Ask Ruth.....

stubby & mark william paules,
i'm so happy to hear (read) what you've both written. hallelujah!

P.P.S. As I warned you....

....unless you laid off the ad homs, I'd start getting 'up-close and personable' too.

You didn't seem to quite catch on.....

Deja, she's not talking about women who lost their hair, she's talking about women who have plenty of hair and cut it to look like a mans. Remember,"Heres Pat" on SNL. When I was in the Navy, I met a masterchief who it took me waaaaayyy too long, (over half an hour) to determine her sex. She was about fifty, medium build and a man's navy style hair cut, ruddy complextion, couldn't tell by voice. I was really kinda confused. I didn't want to say the wrong thing and refer to her as a guy or a woman and be wrong. That would really get you off on the wrong foot. Would it really have been that bad if I would have asked, "What are you?" What my mom is talking about is someone just like that, when their head is wet in a hot tub and you just meet them, whether it is a man or a woman generally has a bearing on the conversation. If I can't tell, I won't talk to them. I don't know why anyone would want to look in the middle. But what do I know? I'm a proud dinosaur.

Chuck, you're a guest here. Act accordingly. Don't post numerous tedious posts, and don't threaten me.

You brought up Mensa in the discussion. I addressed it in the discussion.

My hair is not part of the discussion, and frankly, I doubt anyone cares what you think of it.

Regarding your complaint that you knew I was an advice columnist from coming to my site -- as if this somehow compares to insecure and pretentious people dropping how they went to Harvard into conversation when you first meet them -- or how they're in Mensa...uh, this site started to promote my column. It's a personality-driven site. So, yes, my picture and what I do and lots of details about me, and even about my little dog are front and center.

And on a more pleasant note -- thanks, Chris in Toronto...hope you'll request my column in a paper near you?

What brought you here?

Seven hours two minutes to go and one last change to disagree with Amy this year!

I think she has weird energy about fat girls.

Year after year we see these posts about masculine preference for skinny women, with bonus clucks about "chubby chasers" and coupons redeemable for an apology that ends with "But the science is indisputable!" And year after year, fat and unconventionally-shaped women seem to do no worse in their bonding than anybody else.

If Amy would cop to being a simpleminded fashion slave, this might be cool. As it is, we get the sense that she, being a kinda skinny broad, is trying steer the market in the direction of her own personal price/value sector. That's not a crime against humanity, but it doesn't have much to do with human hearts, human nature, or the shape of what the average human being is likely to be in 100 years.

Don't drink and drive. 6hrs 54 mins. I gotta niece in the future (New Zealand) who wrote an email back at me to laugh at our four-wheeled cars and dual-core computers. 2008 is gonna be GREAT, just you wait and see.
No reason t

Women folk need to reacquaint themselves, especially advice columnists, with what it means to be a man.

Regarding the "especially advice columnists": Never assume. My boyfriend's a man the way they used to make them.

"I spent a lot of years not partnering up with anybody while looking to meet a guy who had what I was looking for."

amy, are you willing to say a little more about this? ...about the decision, about being single for a long time, did you feel stigmatized while single, anything noteworthy about that time in your life...?

Stigmatized? Not at all. Then again, I tend to not look at things from the perspective people are "supposed to." I'm content being alone, and I'd rather have no boyfriend than the wrong boyfriend. Being a girl, it generally isn't too hard to get sex. And I had high standards -- especially for finding a guy who was ethical -- and I waited around till the right guy showed up. About five years ago, December 12, at the Apple computer store at the Grove.

Howdie! Found you by Instapundit. Well, let' see now:



Mensa - Check

Introvert - Check

Answers "Yes" when asked "Does this make by butt look fat?" - Check

Divorced - Check (see above)



From the conversations at the first speed date, I might have found her appealing as long as she presented her claims as an interest rather than a challenge. I would be there to find a friend, not help a stranger deal with 20 years of psychodrama.



The second conversation set made her look like a ditz, and so amusing to others -- certainly less threatening. But endlessly dull. "Is this a fork?" [giggle, giggle] To me, bleah. I'd be polite, but move on.



I've encountered something like the first conversation before. When she ramped up the intensity drifting toward self-righteousness, I had to cut her off: "I'm not your therapist," I said, "at least not until after you bought me dinner and at least two drinks."



That evening actually turned out well.

I wouldn't date her, and it's not because she thinks she's smart. That little tirade of hers makes her far more unattractive than her weight does. I thought no way long before I saw her picture, and I wouldn't have changed my mind no matter how hot she turned out to be.

The "Human Rights Lawyer" talked about herself. The "florist" asked questions.

I think that may have been the difference maker right there.

"I have yet to meet a guy who likes troweled-on makeup."

It is absolutely disgusting.

I want an ultra brainy girl and a woman with big...

Short version: A's in school D's in... Tall (above 5' 7") would be nice too.

I know you're out there. Long term romance (20 to .... years) definitely in the cards.

She's not an "insufferable bitch". She's just fallen for the typical answer to "how do empowered womyn behave?" She should be pitied. And then she should die childless and alone so evolution can work its magic.

Girls who are incredibly hot can get away with acting like asses. She is not incredibly hot.



You gotta be burlier than yer girl. me, i'd be happy just to be MATCHED by my man in terms of gusto, joy, energy, assertiveness so that i don't out-assert, frighten and intimidate my partner just by being smart and sassy, full of mischief and eager to suck the marrow out of the bones of life. someone please tell me there are men out there who don't find all of that SCARY.



Let me make this quick. Why do you need a man at all? You're better than me in every possible way and haven't even hinted in your post that you might need a man.



I need to be the complement to my woman, to be needed. If you can do everything already on your own, then all I am is a drag on your life. I don't know if other men feel like this.



I've also dated the hopeless chick that needed me to do everything for her, that's the other extreme of the spectrum and also very unappealing. I want to have children, not date them.

"Tanya, when you read of men in the Middle East burning -- or stoning or knifing -- their women in "honor killings," do you shrug it off as no biggie?"

Unfortunately Amy, that is probably exactly what she would do, and in fact probably does do whenever news of this sort of thing comes across the telly in front of her. I'm not sure if you have noticed, but feminist organizations in the United States have gone out of their way to refuse to engage, or even comment upon, the monstrous abuse of women, not just in Muslim countries, but even within Western countries if the victims happen to be members of minority or immigrant communities. Actually, it is unfair of me to single out feminists in the United States, as I believe the same to be true throughout the West.

Why this gaping blind spot? Not sure, but I can speculate. I think it has something to do with cultural and moral relativism - a belief that we in the West have no right to judge other cultures by our own standards - even when the standard in question is the most basic, minimal one possible. The irony is that in their subjective striving to be "open" and "accepting" toward other cultures, they become objectively condescending toward, and judgemental of, those cultures in the extreme - to taken to its logical extreme, this passive stance might lead to the conclusion that American feminists view Western women as deserving to be protected and non-western women not.

Then there is the phenomenon that I alluded to in a previous post on that dreadful teddy bear incident in Sudan: The profound loathing that elites in our society have for our own culture combined with their irresistable urge to genuflect before Eastern cultures. To critize the barbaric practices toward women in some other countries runs counter to these impulses, which seem to trump all other considerations.

Hey, Amy. While you're reading that Korzybski brick (excellent choice, by the way) be sure and read the A.E. Van Vogt Null-A novels along with it. And remember: The map is not the territory.

Chuck, did they teach you to threaten women at Ranger camp or is that something you learned on your own ?

relationships based on NEED are doomed. i WANT a man to be my adventure partner and playmate,among other things - someone to suck the marrow out of the bones of life with. it's really wonderful to bike, ski, climb, etc with your lover.

Thanks, Bill!

And Dennis, I've blogged about this before -- a number of times. Here's one of those entries:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/11/dont_get_gangra.html

Here's a comment on it from somebody from NOW:

My name is Jessica Brown. I'm the President of the Nevada chapter of NOW, and I was doing a Google search and came across this blog. I am appalled at the lack of research Ms. Alkon has done, and, as a result, the ridiculous conclusions she has reached. Does she really think that NOW members weren't horrified of the news of the gang rape in Saudi Arabia? Of course we were. And we spoke out against it.

Ms. Alkon, a simple search of the site does not constitute research. NOW has been speaking out against Muslim (Christian, etc.) fundamentalism for years.

Don't start bashing until you have the full story, folks. And the next time the Republicans puts up Christian fundamentalists as nominees to the Supreme Court, you can depend on NOW for being the only organization to send grassroots lobbyists (regular folks, not professionals), to fight hard against it. We are working our asses off.

Posted by: Jessica Brown at December 20, 2007 1:31 PM

And here's my comment in response:

Jessica, how would you suggest I find what NOW stands for if not for a simple search of the NOW site? Does one need a degree in library science? Is there a trove of hidden microfiche I didn't get the decoder ring for?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 20, 2007 2:10 PM

I suspect that NOW has finally heard the criticisms of people like Christina Hoff Sommers, others, and me, and is finally speaking out. NOW has enormous media dollars and support among women. If this was a big issue for them, wouldn't they have made it heard?

Chuckles, if you're threatened simply by her photo you should meet her in person. The hair is fabulous and she looks you right in the eyes when you talk.

I'm a neo-Aristotelian, fully in favor of teleology. I live in Dallas, and I can't find brains and breasts in the same body in this town. I've even searched for an intellectual escort service. I'm willing to pay for a decent conversation with a woman.

Let's have a tea and discuss Korzybski's argument.

Now, now. Just kidding! (Well, at least about that tea thing. Kinda.)

Amy, I hate to say it, but there are a LOT of bitter women like ‘Tanya’ out there who always assume the worse of men, treat them like c$%p, yet expect the men to worship the ground they walk on.

They're shooting your whole gender in the foot. I got so fed up with the abuse and listening to women I know bad mouthing other men that I quit dating for a couple of years. (Word of advice ladies: making a man listen to you rant for half an hour about all men being scum because one guy you dated in high school hurt your feelings is not going to get you a second date.) If I hadn't met my current girlfriend, who actually treats me like a human being with feelings, I'd probably still not be dating and perfectly happy about it.

On the bright side for women, it's making those of you who actually treat men the way you want men to treat you a hot commodity.

Jeremy wrote, "On the bright side for women, it's making those of you who actually treat men the way you want men to treat you a hot commodity."

Completely true. But where are these women? I keep ending up with Tanya Gold types. If nice, intelligent women exist in abundance, then the problem lies with my selection methods --- yet I can't figure it out to save my life.

I'm entering one of those two year breaks from dating women, right now.

Amy, I hate to say it, but there are a LOT of bitter women like ‘Tanya’ out there who always assume the worse of men, treat them like c$%p, yet expect the men to worship the ground they walk on.

They're utter idiots. In five years, I've never said a mean word to my boyfriend. He doesn't deserve it, number one, and you get the relationship you create.

As for finding women who aren't Tanya Golds, part of it is avoiding the Tanyas. And part is becoming very good at assessing people. Here's a helpful book for that, by Nathaniel Branden: The Art of Living Consciously: The Power of Awareness to Transform Everyday Life.

Amy, shouldn't you be on your way to some fabulous party by now?

A little chub is no turn off for me. One of my favorite was a chub, not too good looking (bordering on ugly to tell the truth) but great fun to be with and incredibly bright. Warm hearted and she turned me on to Heinikins. I still have fond remembrances. Especially our last time together (hadn't seen her for about a year) and we had one last roll in the hay together.

My Helen.

Amy, good on ya for calling out NOW. Unfortunately for NOW, Jessica unwittingly demolished NOW in her response to you: You criticized American feminists for standing by mute while women across the globe get butchered for trivial "offenses", and Jessica retorted with a completely unrelated screed criticising the current composition of the US Supreme Court. Clearly, NOW is far more offended by the mere existence of a guy like me than they are at the real horrors being inflicted upon women all over the world. Their utter obsession with their political agenda has left them bereft of any sense of proportion whatsoever. Don't expect them to ever change their behavior on this.

Just a note: don't confuse NOW with "American feminists." American feminists and bloggers I know have been speaking out all over the place about the treatment of women in Muslim and other fundamentalist societies, but they don't have a national venue. NOW doesn't speak for me or other feminists I know.

Let me add re: my not so good looking girl friend.

I have had numerous male friends wonder out loud "how does he get all the good looking girls".

So its not like I have to settle.

The truth is brains will keep you interesting long after beauty fades (or even before it arrives).

I think that because there are so many more women like Tanya Gold nowadays that so many more men are foregoing marriage. Besides, and here's the other edge of the "liberated" sword, why buy a cow when milk's so cheap?
(Sorry. That's a cheap shot)

Just try to stay away from women that wear out that personal pronoun "I". You know what it's going to be about.

A woman doesn't have to be built like Fergie. One of the most intoxicating women I have known was overweight but had a personality that was stupendous. We went together for two years till I graduated from undergrad. It's not the weight so much as attitude and connectivity. If your competing with your man about how much stronger, faster, smarter than he is your done already. The dates I have gone on have been pretty disasterous. I like to discuss history, theology, philosophy and shoot practical pistol. Either the women can't hold a conversation or can't deal with the fact I shoot. Oh well.

*Note: These are my experiences. Do not use them to project to opinions about all men and all women.

.....A follow-up:
Just read this on Instapundit about a new book called "To Truckee's Trail" by Celia Hayes. Highlighted is this:
A good wife will re-load for you, a great one will take up a knife and slit your enemies' throats.
Now, that's wife material!

"My boyfriends's a man . . . " Aye. Then good for you, lass. "And ethical . . . " But then he has to be if he's really a man, non? ". . . the way they used to make them . . ." Now there's an admission worth pursuing. Rephrase: The way that our very best men still ARE. Quite right. We might even add a list of adjectives, just for the sake of discussion . . . truthful, loyal, honest, polite, discriminating, and virile. But then we might desecend into the realm conventional morality if we're not careful.

Trina

Your posts come off as if you as saying the man is an accessory in your relationship. I'm probably wrong but that is the impression I get. I know plenty of couples that hopelessly NEED each other. The connection is that strong. Will you never need him? I'm not talking about NEEDY relationships.

Amy: wow ... this is the most interactive/responsive blogger to commenter's area I can recall.

WRT MENSA ... as an Asperger's autistic, my wife finds MENSA to be an excellent way to meet other ASpies (emotion-blind introverts), although she finds the MENSAns to be rather right-brain linguistic types than the science/engineering geeks she prefers (in sci-fi clubs mostly lately).

WRT looks, expressions, conversational-disasters, etc ... I could babble for ages on her experiences about this (I'll try to minimize it though) ...

My wife has had to learn to act "human" ... to learn to outwardly express / emote what she feels inside, otherwise everyone thinks she is ill or grumpy.

As a result, she has involuntarily done a far more detailed experiment on people's reactions to appearance, expression, mood and attitude (she had to, since she has transitioned from slightly chubby dressing-in-med-scrubs computer-geek physics BS/math-minor AE grad-student to a belly-dance/Bollywood dancer/teacher who also performs as Princess Leia/An Orion/Shiva, etc (see the link in the posting-footer))

ASpies do not respond to faces like you humans do ... (interestingly, MENSAns are so used their much-larger-than-normal % of ASpies that they don't either ... they've never asked if she was ill etc when she performed/taught at the MENSA regional/world gatherings).

Human males can overlook the most egregious social faux-pas by a happy goddess upon first contact and only get higher cognitive functions mostly online several days later. What they won't overlook is if she's wearing her wedding rings, in which case, she suddenly has the inverse social magnetism of a gorgon. If she has forgotten to wear her happy-face, without exception, one or more people ask if she is ok, if she's ill, if they can get something for her, etc.

Females are the exact reverse, with the effects magnified many times over if they are single and same-generation (or their mate is present).

The worst reaction she gets is invariably from females who aim to achieve beauty by a different path (sunbaking, implants, hair-dye, fake-idiocy) who cannot stand seeing a 5'9 36A pale straight-brunette goddess who casually discusses quantum mechanics and steals hearts.

The only negative reaction she gets from males is from (a _very_ few) middle-easterners who tell her she's too pale or skinny to belly-dance ... usually after praising her dance-accent, wondering where inthe middle-east she or her parents are from (nowhere, she's English/Irish, from CT)

Simply: there's nothing so attention-getting as a goddess-in-distress, nothing so off-putting as a grumpy female verbally waving psychological red-flags (except wedding rings), nothing so beautiful as a female who is happy and alive and shows it loudly. (My wife just takes that to the extreme, especially when she's singing for joy in Hindi while performing Bollywood dances ... orfighting with a bathleth or light-saber)

It is amazing how much subconscious effort (and attention) you humans put into your nonverbal or indirect communications (and how much effort ASpies have to put in to decode all that and to weakly attempt to emulate it by logic alone (your NeuroTypical humans have neural hardware that does it for you completely automatically (the mirror-complex neurons) that in ASpies gets pre-birth remapped to pattern-recognition and rewired senses)).

"And I truly ... understand men."




Do you? I don't see much evidence of that on this page. I've been around for a while, but wouldn't be so rash as to claim to understand women, except in the most obvious phenomenological ways. That doesn't prove that you don't, but it explains my skepticism.




But watch out for that Korzbyski stuff; it's dangerous. I checked out Hayakawa's General Semantics from the local library (you don't even have to keep up with the Mensa dues to use it, woo-hoo!) because I couldn't find my old copy, and within hours Hayakawa died. Well, fudge. I hope I didn't have anything to do with it, but there's no way to be sure. And I still haven't found my damn copy.




Burnett's Descartes and the Hyperbolic Quest is good for name-droppers, too, and much safer as it hasn't killed anybody - at least it hasn't, yet. Not General Semantics, more math and astronomy, so it takes some education to even read it, let alone understand it. The author's a bit of a windbag, and I'm left with the nagging feeling that he's actually unaware about some of the details of seventeenth century lens grinding. Well, maybe I won't recommend it then. It's just that it's sitting on top of the "finished, thank gawd" pile right in front of me.




But enough of this airy persiflage.

I'm not interested in lobotomized women at all. I'm also not interested in hotties. I like normal-looking, competant, self-assured, introspective, extremely brainy women. Women who are decent, kind, and as respectful of men as they would, I assume, like men to be of them.

I got divorced five years ago. Waited a year, did some dating for two years or so, then stopped. Met a lot of decent women. Disappointingly, many of the brighter and more interesting women I met were stuck in MacDworkinist mythology of one sort or another. I think I understand where Amy is coming from when she criticizes feminism.

Growing up in the 70's there was a ton of feminist lit around the house. I read a lot of it and did a lot of thinking about equality, respect, fairness. Of course, much of the feminist lit was not actually about equality, respect, or fairness. Twenty years later I found a lot of new writers in this area. They seemed interested in getting the whole story. And in equality, respect, and fairness. Amy mentioned Sommers. You could add McElroy, Young, Farrell, Patai, and a bunch of others too. That got me thinking a lot too. One of the things that struck me years later was how so many of the women I dated had ideas of men that seem so 1970's.

I suspect that I would not have been interested in Ms. Gold either. Nor the equally unpleasant Ms. Dowd, however good looking and lobotomized she may be. Should a very brainy, ordinary-looking, and really nice woman cross my path, however, I just might start dating again.

Two quick thoughts, if I may.

As to Tanya's experience, people tend to respond to people who show interest in them. Tanya may have acted like an idiot in her florist mode, but she wasn't disinterested. That covers a lot of other failings.

Second, as to standards, the higher yours are, the fewer people will meet them. Realistically, if you demand perfection, you will never find it. Then again, if you set your standards too low, you will be so busy with people you don't really want to ever find anyone interesting.

I have to add the disclaimer that I have no recent experience with dating. I've been married for almost forty years and intend to stay that way.

Plenty of men like intelligent women. The two most attractive women I've met in the past ten years have been brilliant-- one a nationally known political figure, the other a state supreme court justice. I can't separate looks from how interesting a woman is to talk to, how nice she is, and, maybe most importantly, how readily she smiles.

Do you? I don't see much evidence of that on this page. I've been around for a while, but wouldn't be so rash as to claim to understand women, except in the most obvious phenomenological ways. That doesn't prove that you don't, but it explains my skepticism.

Read my columns -- they're at the "new columns" link -- and you tell me.

Well - some thoughts on a very interesting thread...
I'm going to divide women (all women) into two categories: Those that like men, and those that don't. Those that like men, tend to get men. Those that don't, don't. This seems to be the simplest (Occamm'est) way to understand why some women succeed with men (whatever their IQ and looks) and some don't.
Personally, I have usually been much too busy deciding if I was into a guy to worry about if he was into me. I don't collect multiple men, so having attributes that make me incompatible with alot of men (my standards, not theirs) does not bother me. I'm too busy thinking about who I want to spend alot of time worrying about who wants me. This generally has the opposite effect - more men are attracted to me than I am attracted to them (grammatically terrible, but you understand...) probably in part because I don't come across as insecure. Also - I don't find that men are threatened by me, even though I have more of an intellectual/analytical bent than many of them (and a really strong personality to boot). Why? Hmmm, must be because I like men. So guys who are street-smart tough dropouts still like and are attracted to me, a soon to be phd. I don't have an attitude and I don't try to threaten men or bust their huevos, cojones, babies, jewels - you get it. I just like men. I'm not attracted to too many of them (more on that in a minute) - but I like them all. Except manipulators or abusers, of course.
What kinds of men am I attracted to? Meaning - what turns me on? Here's a dirty little secret... men (not all, but a decent number) secretly like decisive (but not pushy or obnoxious) women. Women (again not all, but alot) secretly like men that are a little bit vulnerable/self-doubting (but not weak or wimpy) - the kind of man who worries if he is doing the right thing, that he hasn't pissed you off, worries if he is being the best that he can be in his life... etc. Not super insecure - but a little bit of vulnerability is sooo sexy..
Anyway, I tend to like men who are boy-scout'ish (but in a sexy/manly way).. the kind that rush in to help, ask if everything is okay, worry if you are alright, think of you before thinking of themself... This kind of guy brings out the selfless part of me in return... Instead of watching my back (cause he's got it), I can busy myself with watching his back.
Btw - I really related to the previous saying that 'a good woman reloads, a great woman shoots' (yeah, that's my reworking of the phrase to make it more catchy)... I realized that the last guy I was attracted to was not up to me when he told me a story of how he was beaten up by four guys in a park - seriously roughed up. I told him that if I had come along and seen it happen (knowing it was him), I would have jumped between him and the attackers (without a second thought - I know myself - and I mean this - and no lectures please, I'm a grown person who makes my choices). I asked him what he would have done if the situation was the reverse. He said that he would have distracted them, made noise, called the cops... etc. Sweet guy - but if I am ready to literally risk my life without thinking twice, I want a man who will instinctively do the same. So sweet is good, so is ethical (I relate to what you said, Amy - as well as your willingness to wait) - good looking doesnt hurt either (I'm visual like guys are - could care less about rich ugly providers), but I want a guy with balls who will risk them when I need him, just like I would risk my huevos for his ass.
Hey, thanks for letting me say my piece.

Here is the setup to Tanya's experiment:

She is a chubby girl with a confidence problem that is obvious from her body and body language.

Given these limitations, she presented herself as

1) a ball-busting arrogant bitch and;

2) a shy chubby flower-shop girl

Guys pick #2 and she claims is has to do with her job and intellect.

Lets be real. Women are generally strong (and careless and fearless: "think of a man and take away reason and accountability") and men understand this. What men want to avoid is a woman who is willing to employ the newkular option at the drop of a hat. This is because it is a sign of weakness. Given that the cajones of my boys who will carry my name will come from the strength of their mother, any sensible man will avoid the weak woman who feels it necessary to lord over every aspect to prove she is strong.

We know women are generally strong and tough. Some are tougher than others. The weak face that Tanya showed was the one that men were turned off by. The other face was a no-read with the potential for a grateful chubby frolic.

"...I did time in the Army as an airborne-ranger."


This comment of Chuckles raised a big red flag for me - some of the worst of the worst "bar jerks" you are likely to run into falsely claim Airborne, Ranger (btw, you rarely hear these terms used hyphenated, at least in the last 10-15 years, it's a Korea/VN era term), Special Forces, SEAL, SOG, PJ, MFR, or other such special operations forces qualifications. This is a serious and widespread problem, in fact the SEAL vets started up an organization to expose these frauds, VeriSEAL: http://www.veriseal.org . Used to be easy to flush 'em out, just show them your "challenge coin," the real deal will know what they have to do in response. eBay put the kibosh on that one, unfortunately. You can still smoke them out by asking for specifics, who was their platoon sergeant, what was their ABN school number, what was their RGR class number, were they a "winter or summer Ranger" (and what does that mean), what and where is the "frying pan", exactly how many klicks is the Blue Ridge power station from Camp Merrill, what is a "black hat," exacly which unit(s) did they serve with (hint: there ain't no "secret" Ranger units), and so on. Big fun in the right context.



Mores to the topic at hand, I thought it interesting that he threw this up as some lame attempt at victimhood, "...the people here suffering from low-self-esteem over mental capabilities seem to want to hammer me. Just like the ones with low-self-esteem vis-a-vis courage like to try to hammer me because it came out I did time in the Army as an airborne-ranger." Who in the world "hammers" anyone because of their service in a specific military unit 20+ years beforehand, unless there is some bizarre political issue at stake? And, how did it just happen to "come out" that he had allegedly served thusly?



Or, more likely, it just doesn't ring of truth...just like Example A that you are discussing here. When I met my soon-to-be wife nearly 30 years ago, she was my boss, and we hated each other guts. Intensely and not in a fun way, either. Even so, I still respected her, because she was straightforward, honest, honorable, and the sour whiff of deception was not to be found in or around her. When we met again under happier circumstances later, the same honesty and honor she possessed was what caused me to fall deeply in love with her, and our mutual stubbornness kept us together through the difficulties of trying to find out how to lie and grow together. It didn't hurt that we both believed that we had to honor our vows ("..until death do you part..."), despite not liking the situations we found ourselves in from time to time.



Not one single bit of our relationship then or now had anything to do with our jobs, or our looks, our weight, our fashions, the size of our bank accounts, or what kind of car we drove. What we did base it on could not possibly be displayed in an "instant date" sort of situation, which I think is the crux of the problem here.



Sorry for the longish rambling post, but I have enjoyed reading this interesting exchange, and wanted to add my own two bits.

Excuse me, any man who describes women as 'lacking reason and accountability' (even given that he is quoting someone else)would not be seen as appealing by most intelligent women. Just because a woman will risk her life to protect/save her loved ones (as noted above in previous post) does not mean that reason is lacking. It means that courage is present. A man who has 'reason and accountability' may be another name for a man lacking balls.

Look, I like forists as much as the next guy, but someone who wants to 'burn our men' after one evening of bad dates is clearly carrying around a lot of baggage. Maybe the problem wasn't how the men reacted to the many lies she told them, but rather that she tripped their psycho detectors. "Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!....."

Women are generally strong (and careless and fearless:

Actually, men are the risk-takers of the species. They have to be --- to get chicks.

Two quick comments.

First, it seems fairly obvious to me that Miss Gold set this up to achieve a particular outcome from the start. As others have pointed out, she did not go into this "experiment" without bias, nor did she give her "subjects" the opportunity to respond realistically, given her belligerance during the first attempt. Her second may have been a bit closer to a true test, but still deceptive, because we don't know how much she let herself go while talking to them about flower shops, possibly starting her own business, etc.

Secondly, it is NEVER ever bad to be shallow!!!!!
Repeat, BE SHALLOW!!!! I am completely serious, that feeling in your gut is your inner voice warning you that something isn't right. If you don't listen, you will make the same mistake that I did. I listened to my friends when they said "Oh, don't be SHALLOW! We know he's 4 inches shorter than you, and he'e unemployed, and oh, yeah! He's uglier than Hades! But he has a nice personality. You should go out with him, 'cause being SHALLOW is bad!"
Trust me, I learned a very expensive life lesson.
and I may never sleep again.

It's not shallow to go after what you want and to turn down what you don't -- it's wise, and much kinder to the person you aren't trying to like...the person you'll ultimately dump because you realize you can't be physically attracted to somebody just because they're a nice person and you think you should be.

Here's an example from one of my columns, about a single dad who thinks I'm a terrible person for not advising a 25-year-old girl to ignore how she isn't into a guy with kids and date single dads anyway.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2007/12/doodie_calls.html

P.S. And yes, for those who don't know my work, a single mom would've gotten exactly the same answer, but for a variation on the Tommy Trouser Snake joke.

so how hard do you climb then?

Her experiment suffers from the lack of a control group and the "post hoc" fallacy (after this, therefore because of this) and she might have queered her results because she was unable to control her bitchiness during the "I am a wiz" part of the experiment.

However she may on to something as men and women do pursue different mating strategies for short and long term relationships. ie. a quick fuck or a partner to raise children with.

Differential parental investments predict this and it has a long history of experimental investigations, although it is not quite physics, it has some good scientific backing.

A good place to start is here

The Human Behavior and Evolution Society

http://www.hbes.com/

the abstract of their last convention are here and can make for some pretty interesting reading (pdf)

http://www.hbes.com/Hbes/abst2007.pdf

Her experiment suffers from the lack of a control group and the "post hoc" fallacy (after this, therefore because of this) and she might have queered her results because she was unable to control her bitchiness during the "I am a wiz" part of the experiment.

However she may on to something as men and women do pursue different mating strategies for short and long term relationships. ie. a quick fuck or a partner to raise children with.

Differential parental investments predict this and it has a long history of experimental investigations, although it is not quite physics, it has some good scientific backing.

A good place to start is here

The Human Behavior and Evolution Society

http://www.hbes.com/

the abstract of their last convention are here and can make for some pretty interesting reading (pdf)

http://www.hbes.com/Hbes/abst2007.pdf

When you seek to deceive the only person you deceive is yourself.
The vast majority of men are looking for a woman who has a personality. Men are as clumsy as women are when first meeting someone different.
The fact is that most of us men are not put off by a woman's education unless that is how she defines herself. The real question is, "What kind of person are you?" What does your education status have to do with creating a relationship? Keep it at work!
We are a lot better at body language than you might want to believe.

so how hard do you climb then?

Don't understand the question.

Amy,
The "how hard do you climb" question is common among rock climbers. Trina mentioned climbing so I assume the question is directed toward her.

it's not shallow to go after what you want and to turn down what you don't -- it's wise, and much kinder to the person you aren't trying to like...the person you'll ultimately dump

Unfortunately it took me a long time to learn this and there were more hurt feelings than needed to be for both sides. It is true for characteristics other than looks. I would usually compromise in some area of the relationship in a way that I knew I couldn't sustain long term because the prospective girlfriend had many other qualities I liked and I wanted to be in a relationship. The breakup would come after both of us were quite attached. It was painful and unnecessary. No longer. If a woman wants me to compromise on something that I cannot do over the long haul then I give her the opportunity to determine how important it is to her and if she really needs that in a man. If we don't match then we are done.

This is the kind of nonthink I dispel in my column. If those of you dropping in here like it, please feel free to request my column in a paper near you. Write to the features editor of a daily or the alt weekly editor.

I wrote a response recently to a guy who had a thing for big boobs -- out of the pressure you write about above, he'd gotten together with a girlfriend who was flat-chested. He thought he *should* want her because she was a nice person, but spent much of his time obsessing over what he didn't have. He isn't wrong to want big boobs -- any more than I'm wrong to be attracted to big, tall men - he's only wrong to try to make it work with a girl who doesn't have them if he needs them. Ultimately, he'll break up with her -- after she's attached to him.

wow this is still going!

Your posts come off as if you as saying the man is an accessory in your relationship

Richard Cook – hmmm, this is interesting feedback for me to get and I will give it some serious thought. you may be onto something …if you’re still here, I’d be interested to hear what exactly gives you this idea…. in the meantime, I want to say that the role of adventure mate is absolutely not a peripheral one. it assumes first that we are friends and lovers and that we share a certain joie de vivre. being climbing partners means you both trust the other with your life, literally. doing activities together that generate endorphins and adrenaline is very bonding; it mimics the high of falling in love, keeps that feeling going. and you get a fabulous view of your partner’s ass and legs, at least for the first couple of minutes of the climb, until he’s out of view.

I know plenty of couples that hopelessly NEED each other. The connection is that strong. Will you never need him? I'm not talking about NEEDY relationships.

when one person comes to another person from a place of NEED, that is NEEDY. our culture’s notions of romance – “I can’t live without you; you complete me; I need you” – are totally unhealthy boolchit.

Stephen – just 5.9 or 10, but that’s essentially off the couch. I’m not GREAT at any of the activities I do because I divide my playtime among so many. I do these things for FUN, not with a goal of working at it in order to get better at it, and not so I can tell people “I cleaned a 12c today.” taking it too seriously ruins the fun for me.

miriam - i love what you had to say. thanks for that.

where is the freakin thingie for making italics????

Your posts come off as if you as saying the man is an accessory in your relationship

Well, I have a strong self, and I'm happy alone. I'm happier with my boyfriend, and can't imagine being without him. The best kind of person to be with is somebody who needs you because you're you, not because they're a gaping void desperate for the filling.

amy, i wasn't saying that to you - that's what richard said to me. i'd have italicized it if i could find the freakin..... yah.

"The best kind of person to be with is somebody who needs you because you're you, not because they're a gaping void desperate for the filling."

YESSSSS. exactly. but do you really mean "need" or do you mean "wants" to be with you...? where is the line, in love, between want and need?

Sorry about that!

And I mean "wants to be with you."

I could live without Gregg, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as fun as having Gregg in my life.

Thank you Trina - I sometimes put time and effort into a post and don't get any feedback - which can be frustrating (because I am writing to hear others' reactions, not to talk to myself), so I appreciated your kind comment!

I appreciated both of your comments -- but I was in a hurry when I read them, so didn't get around to commenting.

Thank you Trina.

Perhaps I should elaborate. I don't mean to *be* truly shallow, just to ignore the people around you who call you shallow, as my friends did, and that girl's father, for not wanting to date the person they push at you. Go with your instincts, and trust yourself.

There was a time when having good judgement and being able to discriminate between good and bad were qualities that were encouraged. Common sense was just that, common. I had to learn a lot of things the hard way, so I've made sure my girls had the benefit of my experience. They know they can talk to me about anything, ask advice about anything, but ultimately the decision is theirs. (Gasp! no meddling mom-in-law!)

I emailed her, with the subject: You got owned by Amy Alkon (I hope she comes over for a comment)

My Email:
Rather that taking your being rejected by these men for being so smart (ha), face it, you got rejected for being a self-involved flake and bitch.

When you played florist, some men were willing to overlook how damn ugly you are, because they thought you were sweeter.

Your article should have been on how desperate for a nice, sweet woman men are, that they are even willing to fall all over a fat, pancake makeup ditz.

the experiment was incomplete-should have included smart bitch with giggles and simple soul with sharp tongue. i'm betting the smart giggly bitch would have done pretty good, too.(men like giggles on a woman).

Oh, yeah. I do not agree with you. Never fall for someone who only sees you as one option amoung many.

Great stuff! You really pulled no punches in slamming the "Skanks in the City" type of bitches that you infest your local, big-city bar, anchoring the news or reading Anna Quindlen. Kudos!

I posted a link and portion of it over at my forum. Hope you do not mind!

funnily enough she didn't run into a total shark her first time out, who was willing to meet her stride for stride, get her interested and then ditch her. 'Course that would have only ended with a different sort of nasty tirade about men...

In the end, in such a short span of time as a speed date, it's interest as well as chemistry... people that go in looking for other people, hunting in essence, are looking outside themselves. From there it's a negotiation about what things each person learns about the other. Did her lawyer personae seem to be "this is who I am take it or leave it?" Did her florist personae seem to act interested in knowing the man across from her? Small wonder that the first reeks of "High Maint." and the second smells better.

Her jab about men in the feminist age, is somewhat amusing. How many women try to force a man to be what they want, and then don't actually want that? If you want someone who is willing to be relentlessly chanllenged, you better expect someone who is up to the task. When you say your cats are roe and wade, what happens if he says, "yeah, cats are OK, but my dog ate my ex-girlfriends one..." It would be amusing if she was persued by an ultraconservative, with amazing chemistry, who hates the way she dresses. I wonder how she would deal with loathing and detesting someone who got her all hot and bothered...

Although maybe that is ALREADY the problem. Pragmatically I'd say her best bet would be to stick with something mechanical, and just skip men. With a little luck, someday she might be able to find delight in what other people do, rather than forcing them to fit inside the custom made box she has marked 'man'.

I do wonder what would have happened if she had run across someone she actually liked... How would she explain such deception right off the bat?

Thanks, Small Corner...appreciate it.

And D:

To me, she seems very angry (out of what I perceived as a sense of entitlement), and you just don't attract people in that state of mind.

So many men who write to me are just STARVED for a woman to be nice to them: sweet, kind, accepting, not demanding, and appreciative of what they do for her...whether that's making an effort to dress up for dates or washing her car or just noticing that she's cold. The secret these women don't know: A guy will do a hell of a lot more for a woman who's sweet to him and doesn't make demands than a nagging bitch who's on him all the time.

And then there's understanding that guys are guys, and not expecting a guy to be your best friend, your therapist, or your gay confidant. Don't ask them if your ass looks fat, and, if you can help it, don't make them go to stuff they hate. And don't try to stop them from being the person they want to be or doing stuff they love. Either a guy works for you or he doesn't. Appreciate him and leave him be or just leave him.

I've known women like Tanya, hell I've been on blind dates with women like Tanya, only to later find out that the reason I apparently didn't fancy them was because '(I'm) intimidated by intelligent women'. Not because they were dull, or argumentative, weighed more than I did or looked like Rush Limbaugh, but because I was intimidated by their intelligence.

Like the women I dated Tanya's coming up with a convenient reason why she's not going steady with George Clooney, rather than taking responsibility for herself. She likes to think that being ‘too clever’ is a hindrance so that she has no option but to in some way lessen her abilities to attract a man, which (as any feminist will tell you) is something women shouldn’t do. So poor Tanya, there’s nothing she can do to get herself a man because her IQ’s too high!

Well, I might feel sorry for this Guardian columnist if her ‘conclusion’ wasn’t ultimately a way of blaming others for not finding her attractive, whilst making herself sound good at the same time. It’s a response from the same stable as being ‘too much woman for him to handle’. Men do the same thing when we claim that ‘women just want jerks’, and that’s an equally stupid statement.

Amy, thanks for speaking out against this lady’s poorly thought out rant. I know that when I faced up to what was wrong with me that my dating prospects changed dramatically, something Tanya might consider doing before she considers getting hold of some napalm.

You're welcome, and ditto on this:

I know that when I faced up to what was wrong with me that my dating prospects changed dramatically,

Personal responsibility. Taking it is never as easy on the ego as blaming other people for your problems!

“appreciative of what they do for her...whether that's making an effort to dress up for dates or washing her car or just noticing that she's cold.”

I think it’s really important to make a distinction between actual, genuine, healthy giving and manipulation. A lot of men seem to think that the way to win a woman is to just give her things and do things for her whether she wants them or not; that if he does things for her, well then she is OBLIGATED to like/love him and want to be with him; that it’s a fail-proof way to MAKE a girl want/need you.

I’ve had a fair sampling of men who “give” to me in order to set me up to do and say the requisite things about what “nice guys” they are. these are the men who do a good deed not because it’s a good deed and they feel good inside about doing it, but because doing it makes them look like a charming prince, a savior, a knight in shining armor, a “nice guy.” these are the guys who “anticipate” your needs and desires and smother you with what they think you need and want, and expect blue ribbons of valor to be pinned to their chests as a result of their heroics. these are the guys who remind you of “all they do for you,” who constantly say, “SEE how I will martyr myself before you? SEE all that I will do for you? SEE how I will sacrifice for you? SEE what a victim I will make myself for you?” It’s a set up. It’s manipulation. It’s not nice, but these are the self professed “nice guys” who you always hear saying that bit about how “women just want jerks.”

One such “nice guy,” in the effort to win me, came to my house once while I was at work and installed on my entry gate/arbor (which I was in the process of designing and building at the time) some hardware that he thought went well with what I had built so far, that he thought would solve one of the problems I was having w/the function of the gate. It was butt ass ugly, not a good solution, and it was MY house, MY gate and he came over here and physically attached stuff to it that I never even had the opportunity to say I liked and/or wanted. It wasn’t nice; it was an overstepping of boundaries. When this guy did something that you actually wanted to thank him for, if you said thank you 30 times, he needed 31.

Now before you spank my bare bottom mercilessly, I will say YES I am thinking about and looking at MY role in this, why and how I’m initially attracting this kind of guy, or attracted TO this kind of guy, why I’m ignoring red flags when they pop up, and what I need to change about me and my habits in order to not repeat the pattern. You’re probably going to spank me anyway about something. My teeth are gritted and my bottom is ready.

I'm talking about a guy you're involved with who does nice things for you because he cares about you and wants you to be happy.

The other is icky.

As for doling out punishments, you seem to be self-spanking in the end (how refreshing!) so I'll go back to the person I've been spanking in what's turning out to be next week's column.

P.S. Now, just apply what you already know, and you're in business.

Donna B. wrote a good comment above:

"I read once that the best thing you can give a man is a smile, and that's why all the models in ads (tv, not fashion) are smiling all the time. To have a beautiful woman smile at a man is so great for him!"

The woman does not have to be beautiful for this to work. Women have NO IDEA how lonely, scared, and intimidated many men are of them. NONE. I know, because I used to be one of them as were a lot of my friends. Many men are socially crippled by this. A lot of them would definitely be considered of average or better attractiveness by an honest viewer.

I know overweight average-looking women who have to knock back men with sticks, they are so popular. And I know some who verge on supermodel beauty who can't keep men around for more than one date.

Ladies, I'm going to give you, for free, the most valuable relationship advice you will ever receive: You HAVE TO BE NICE and SMILE at men. But you actually have to do it, not just theorize about it on the Internet.

Men DO NOT EVER want to hear your BS "MacDworkin" theories about gender relationships, and how little boys should be made to play with dolls because after all 100% of gender differences are societal constructs, and all that absolute crapola. At least the kind of men you would want to have around for more than 20 minutes. Don't use the words "patriarchal" or, God forbid, "phallocentric" either. Don't try to figure out some mythical "conspiracy" among men, because there ain't any. Men are not that complex.

Women who gripe about how overweight women can't attract men are just so utterly damn hilarious. Have you never been to a shopping mall, or to a football game, or to Disneyworld? There are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of overweight women from every culture who have attracted men.

Try an experiment for a few weeks: every time you encounter a man at school or work or out somewhere, even if he turns your stomach, smile at him, nod hello, and a say a few words. It will cost you no more than a few seconds and nothing bad can happen to you, but after a while you will be shocked at how men start treating you differently.

You see, contrary to what you have repeatedly been told, men talk among one another about women. Not as much probably as women talk about relationships, but a decent amount. And while there have been women that I did not want to date for whatever reason (including the fact that I have been married for over 20 years), I have a hell of a lot of male friends to whom I can steer these women.

A guy who in your estimation is ugly, dorky, dweeby, and nerdy may have some fabulous friends to introduce you to. And you just might be surprised that if you take a chance like this, you will find yourself attracted to the guy you initially thought was ugly, dorky, dweeby, and nerdy. It happens all the time.

One final bit: WE ARE NOT MINDREADERS. Don't expect us to figure out what subtle thing you are thinking of, because we can't, and usually don't want to. At least not until we have been married to you for 20 years, at which point we can look at you and already know what's on your mind, and the thing that will follow. That part really does work.

Trina-

Re: Make up

You will NEVER see my girlfriend without lipstick. It's just who she is, and she doesn't apologize for it. She also kayaks, does bicycle charity fundraisers, and plays all manner of sports with me. She's the perfect combination of girly girl and jockette.

I remember when I was doing curls at the gym next to a group of young guys who were discussing the MILFs in attendence. My SO walked by, and one of the guys said she was hot for an older woman, but why does she wear makeup to the gym? One of the group who knew me immediately looked over to judge my reaction, which was to smile and tell the guy the she looked good in the morning without it, too. He was a real deer in the headlights, as he didn't expect someone like her (5'10", 125 lbs.) to be with someone like me (5' 11", 290 lbs., benchpress 450 lbs.), and I had to listen to his apologies for the next half hour.

It amazes me that so many have issues with makeup, like it's false advertising or something. I find this topic strange in a society where surgical modification is one of the fastest-growing areas of medicine.

If she faked an economics Ph.D. with me she wouldn't last 5 minutes.

Remember that episode of Star Trek where a group of AI's were given a simulated emergency to test their intelligence but they were smart enough to know the emergency wasn't real so they responded by cancelling the simulation?

"Women have NO IDEA how lonely, scared, and intimidated many men are of them.... Many men are socially crippled by this. A lot of them would definitely be considered of average or better attractiveness by an honest viewer."

chester, i know, i know! one of my dearest, cutest, funnest, funniest, sweetest, athletic male buddies is like this and it's really sad. if he could get over this, he'd be an incredible partner for someone.

brutus -- i hear you; i love wearing lipstick but i find it too much of a pain in the ass in most cases. you can't eat, drink, or smooch w/o having to then touch it up. it's just a hassle for me. i bow dowon to the women like your girlfriend who know how to manage it well.
WHY/OF WHAT are they so scared and intimidated?

woah, sorry - something ended up in the wrong place. this question: WHY/OF WHAT are they so scared and intimidated? was supposed to follow my comment to chester:

chester, i know, i know! one of my dearest, cutest, funnest, funniest, sweetest, athletic male buddies is like this and it's really sad. if he could get over this, he'd be an incredible partner for someone. WHY/OF WHAT are they so scared and intimidated?

Allow me to make this observation: there are an awful lot of women who have not learned how to assume or project the attitude of quiet confidence. (There are a lot of men in this category too, but most of them don't try to fake it, and the ones who do are usually so bad at it that they are spotted from a mile off.) When they think they are acting strong and assertive, it's actually coming across as brittle. It leads the observer to think that the woman in question will shatter into a million pieces, and then lawyer up afterwards, if he so much as looks at her the wrong way. In the corporate world, you have to deal with a certain number of them; they have learned how to game the AA system to get promoted to far above their level of competence, and their precariously balanced psyches have to be handled with absolute kid gloves. (And it isn't just the men that have to deal with it; they are probably even worse to their sane female co-workers.) That's so exhausting that any men, upon encountering such a female in a situation where he doesn't absolutely have to tolerate here, will react by just getting the hell away as quickly as possible.

And yes, if anyone haughtily introduces themselves to me as "human rights lawyer" (male or female), my gut reaction is going to be "Overpaid, self-important, globe-trotting, child-abusing UN apparatichik", and if I've already shaken hands with them, I'm going to be looking for the washroom. The single worst date I ever had, even worse than the chick who tried to convince me that she'd do me if I agreed to join the John Birch Society, was with a product-liability lawyer who pretty much looked down on all of the rest of humanity. She was quite proud of the suits that she'd won and the compaines that she had put out of business, or so she said. Assuming that she wasn't padding the story just a bit (which she might have been, but I couldn't tell for sure), she cared nothing about the facts of the matter or the veracity of the cases she filed. The misery that she caused with baseless lawsuits was not her problem, as long as she got her 40%. And she wasn't shy about sharing her political opinions; as far as she was concerned, the government should take over all production and kick those evil, profit-seeking company men (her opponents were always men, to her her tell it) out of the country. It took me about three minutes to realize that I was in the presence of a potentially dangerous psychosis, and then it was a matter of figuring how to wrap up the date as quickly as possible -- without geting sued. I never got in a word edgewise all night. She did let me pick up the dinner tab, though.

And BTW, she was not close to being a hottie either.

Trina-I kid her that she likes to mark her territory! Believe me when I tell you that, for a lipstick junkie like her, the price of those little tubes of goo are insane.

I think I can speak to the fear/intimidation that all men feel in their relationships with women. I've always been the male version of the chubby girl (albeit muscular and strong), so in my youth I would never presume to chase the beautiful girls (and the didn't come looking for me, either). When I went to college, I found that the women were a bit more likely to relate to a husky guy who said and did the right (informed and/or gentlemanly) things, but I had to overcome my self-conditioning to ask them out. There was some rejection, but it was offset by acceptence, so I started to get over the fear. By the time I was involved in the mid-twenties dating wars, I adopted the John Mellencamp line "ain't good lookin' but I ain't shy" as my own. My ex, to whom I was married for 10 years, was a cute, chunky, busty woman that was my paradigm for looks.

Fast forward 20 years, and the love of my life is the aforementioned tall, slender beauty, so I guess tastes change and you really don't have much control over who you fall in love with. To use the phrase bandied about here, she's WAY out of my league, looks-wise. But we met at the gym, both riding the bikes and reading. According to what I've been reading here, I should never have begun talking to her about her literary tastes, but I did, and she responded in kind, which was surprising because she came off (intentionally) as aloof, which most beautiful women do to keep men from constantly hitting on them. We became friends and workout partners, and then lovers when we both realized that we we, by dint of interests and temperment, ideal for one another. What helped, I think, is the fact that she never hung out with the pretty girl clique, as she has a lot more going on upstairs than most, but was never accepted by the "unpopular" crowd because of her looks and bearing. Add to that the fact that, as slender as she is, she eats as much as I do, and she's ostracized by the sisterhood to this day. Thus, I think she's been free of any need to meet any sort of preconceived notion about what her ideal man should be. Her best friend told me that she lobbied against me from the start as not being a good match. As has been pointed out in this thread, women really DO eat their own!

And I had my best friend tell me that we can't last together because I always had a 36C-cup minimum!

Trina, let me run a question by you. And I'm not asking to be sarcastic, and I'll accept whatever answer you give. Here's the question:

Do you think that some of those guys you mentioned in your earlier post might have been getting mixed signals from you? I ask because I've been through that a couple of times. There was one woman I met at work who let me take her out on dates several times. She gave the standard indications of being interested: making eyes over dinner, kiss on the lips after dropping her off, wearing sexy clothes for me, etc. Then, we went to a party together, and afterwards she asked me to go back to her apartment with her. But shortly after the make-out session started, she called a halt, and said she just wanted to be friends. Okay, fine. Friends are good.

So a few days later, she calls and wants to go out to dinner again. I ask her, is this a date? She says no, she wants to have dinner with a friend, and she'll split the tab. Fine. We go out. Once again, she's dressed very sexy, and once again, I get the eyes over dinner. And then at the end of dinner, she says "I didn't get to go to the bank today; would you be a dear and pick up the check?" So it was a date. Okay, we're dating again. We go out a couple of more times, things get hotter, and then you gessed, lather, rinse (or rather, don't rinse), repeat. After the second cycle I called a halt. She was very bitter about that. But then a few months later I coincidentally ran into her at the airport. She hit on me and gave me her new phone number. I never called.

Some women are obviously consciously manipulative when they play games like this. But this woman I don't think was; I never saw any other evidence that she had it in her to be that deviously clever. So what was it? I've never figured it out. Did she go around hitting on guys without really realizing it because she didn't know any other way to relate to men? Was she spoiled, and trying to reap the benefits of a romantic relationship without putting any effort into it? Was she psycho, or just really confused?

About men:
There are women out there who don't understand men. There are women out there who do understand men - see exactly how vulnerable and sensitive they really are. Of this second group, there are two types - those that hate the men for their 'weakness' - and those that love them for it. If you are a woman who both understands men, and still likes/loves them, you will have the return regard and loyalty (and hots) of alot of nice guys. Men want a woman with whom they can show their tender spots and not be despised for it. (Manly but sweet and vulnerable men - Gawd, I'm heating up just thinking about it!)

Trina - don't worry - the best thing about a negative experience with a boyfriend/girlfriend is that, like the common cold, you don't catch exactly the same bug, germ, (jerk, jerkette) twice. So that will probably be the last time you get such an overt boundary violator.

Trina:

I don't know why men are scared or intimidated by women, but believe me, many of them are.

I remember reading a quote by Abraham Lincoln: "A woman is the only thing I am afraid of that I know will not hurt me."

Another bit of advice (the kind I guarantee you will NEVER get from COSMO or similar magazines) for women with an open mind looking for potential mates: Forget the doctors and lawyers and Wall Street-types and BMW-drivers and guys with gold neck chains in bars; try hanging around places where male engineers and scientists are likely to be found.

They are seriously underappreciated and underestimated by women, and make excellent boyfriends. They aren't goofballs or flighty, they work hard, they are less likely to be distracted by stupid stuff, they are intelligent, they make (or will make) a good living, and they are loyal and almost certainly won't run off with the next skirt that comes through the door.

And many of them are athletic and into hiking and rock climbing and bicycling and are as "manly" as anyone.

That's two life-changing pieces of advice I have supplied free of charge. Ladies, if you are smart, you'll try what I suggest.

Thank you, Chester (c:

"They aren't goofballs or flighty, they work hard, they are less likely to be distracted by stupid stuff, they are intelligent, they make (or will make) a good living, and they are loyal and almost certainly won't run off with the next skirt that comes through the door...And many of them are athletic and into hiking and rock climbing and bicycling and are as "manly" as anyone."

I WANT ONE.

"Some women are obviously consciously manipulative when they play games like this. But this woman I don't think was; I never saw any other evidence that she had it in her to be that deviously clever. So what was it?"

Cousin Dave,
here’s my theory on this: a lot of women subsist solely on getting men to want them. They don’t do it consciously; it’s an unconscious dependence on outside sources of validation. it’s their ONLY source of feeling good about themselves. (men do it too.) they don’t even realize that that’s what they’re doing. they need to know you find them desirable but they don’t really intend to follow through with it. it sounds like it didn’t take very many dates for you to figure out she was waffling or messing with you, which is to say you can weed those women out quickly if you pay attention, just as women can quickly weed out the just-looking-for-an-ego-boost guys that lead them on.

You asked me "Do you think that some of those guys you mentioned in your earlier post might have been getting mixed signals from you?"

That’s a totally fair question, and with total certainty I can say no:

the hardware installing guy was an acquaintance, we weren’t dating in any way shape or form and he had no reason to believe that was an option. I had a boyfriend at the time and he knew it. he still “sniffed around” when my boyfriend wasn’t around, and wooed me with boundary violations.

the burly rock climber - it started w/obvious mutual attraction, the love of outdoor activities in common, doing outdoor things together, then dating…. I was truly blinded by infatuation, and we were having such a great time playing and adventuring that it took about six months for me to realize that every time he opened his mouth, what came out was either the kind of bragging a seven year old boy does, or a claim to victimhood (which for him translates to martyrdom and heroism). he is still and forever a victim of the climbing partner who fell in a crevasse and caused him also to fall and break his arm 30 years ago (he chose to do a serious peak w/a guy he knew to be a not-so-good mountaineer); he is a victim of his ex-wife (he didn’t want to marry her in the first place but did anyway and it’s all her fault), he is a victim of his daughter when he “has” to fix her bike or drive her to soccer practice. he is never responsible and he never makes choices; things only ever happen TO him. so inevitably he made himself a victim of me, making me responsible for his ego. if I didn’t stroke it enough I was MAKING him feel bad about himself. and I DID stroke it, to a degree that is reasonable without being disgusting. I totally loved the adventuring we did together, told him so. I thought he was incredibly sexy, told him so, I made his favorite cookies for him, I was very appreciative when he helped me w/things, I complimented him on things that matter and things that don’t, made a fun, flirtatious play out of ogling his legs, squeezing his biceps, becuz I was craaaazy about him in a lot of ways. but no amount of praise was ever enough. the void was bottomless. and he was threatened by the fact that I’m college educated and he’s not. even though he is an encyclopedia of wildnerness survival and high angle rescue, waaaaay smarter than me in those ways, which frankly are more useful than a college degree in the circumstances we were in together. the guy can and has climbed the equivalent of mt. everest, but he had an ego crisis when I beat him at scrabble. he truly believed that my job was to make him feel some certain way that he is incapable of making himself feel. ultimately, I ended the relationship because it was doomed, no matter how much fun we had together and no matter how much sexual attraction there was. and it gets tiring listening to a guy do nothing but brag, whether it be about feats of physical prowess or feats of emotional victimhood.

my role/responsibility/mistake: getting deeply involved w/him before I really knew who he was and what he was about, diving in quickly becuz I sooo wanted a man in my life.

jeez I’m sorry this was so long. if there’s a rule about length on these things someone needs to tell me. I’ll now start posting as “Windbag.”

try hanging around places where male engineers and scientists are likely to be found.

Geeks make the best boyfriends. Met mine at the Apple computer store. He's the best person I know.

About the advice to smile above: I smile at everyone, and say hello, at the very least. To people sitting next to me, to people ringing up my groceries, to strangers who come into a place looking lost. Just to name a few.

Last week, at Kaiser, I had a long chat with an elderly watchman who emigrated here from Kiev 15 years ago. There wasn't much going on (it was the early evening) so I went over and said hello and asked where he was from.

And earlier in the day at Kaiser, I had a great talk with an older couple about rude people on cell phones. This man sat down two seats away from me -- black man, handsome, gray goatee, about 70 or so -- and I smiled at him and when he smiled back, I said hello. He and I started talking and then his wife came over, and we had a great time. They were really friendly, and apparently in love at 70-something, and having a blast together. The guy told me he only spoke to me because I smiled at him. Otherwise he would've kept to himself.

I've met numerous friends and had all sorts of exciting (and just nice) things happen simply because I smile and say hello. I like connecting with people, even if I'll never be interested in dating them. And I think that's something people pick up on, and something you can't fake.

Sorry for the assumption that he was your boyfriend - but the point remains: We generally learn from the people we encounter and don't attract the same issues twice (variations, but not exactly the same - we look out for what just burned us). Don't worry about long posts... mine was pretty long. Me, I go for 'lost boys'. The type that are everlastingly grateful for your presence in their life. Geeks, hunks, poets, musicians, brains, toughies, - doesnt matter - as long as they are a little bit lost (maybe their 'lost boy' connects with my 'lost girl')...

miriam,

thanks, and i think you're right about learning from these things - at the very least i'm getting a lot of practice at recognizing red flags, and of course i'm learning some things about myself. it's just been so wierd to have had a few guys in a row who turned from interesting-seeming men into puppy dogs waiting for hand outs of validation.

it's strange that none of us seems able to pinpoint or articulate this fear issue. lots of folks seem to agree that it's a reality but no one can say why. amy, do you have any theories about why so many men say they are afraid of women? i mean, abraham lincoln??!!

Men are hard wired by nature to be providers, and were also taught by society that it is weak to show our feelings.

In todays society where anyone can be a provider and arranged marrige are no longer in effect women are forced to be more discerning makeing rejection far more likley. This is unpleant to be sure, but it sets the foundation.

Once in a relationship many men feel that displaying excessive emotion is a sign of weakness, its portrayed that way in the media and everyone has a friend of familly member who was screwed over in divorce court with somthing he confided to his ex. This makes us wary on top of the unpleasnt nagging worry that we stil may be rejected for some unknown(to us at least) reason.

AS to where the fear kicks in, its kind of hard to explain. Women and men are so fundementally different when it comes to displaying and discusing emotions. Its hard to allow yourself to let your gaurd down.

The closest analogy I can think of is that trust exercise where you stand on a desk and let yourself fall backwards and trust someone to catch you.

In the case of many men its like that, but you dont know what your partners reaction will be, and whether or not they will have the streangth to support you.

It may not be a rational fear but if you try and see it from the proper perspective it is an undestandable one

trina, thanks for the response. I agree that the gate-hardware guy was engaging in borderline stalking -- I thought so before, but your response clarified it. Interesting bit about the rock climber; it's amazing how someone who appears to be successful and has everything going for them can turn out to be a writhing mass of insecurities inside.

My experience with the waffler was not my first time at that rodeo, so I was quick to recognize it. I had a previous experience with it that I didn't handle so well. Even with this one, it hacked me off for a while, until I realized that she had so many problems that she wasn't capable of maintaining any kind of relationship. At that point I was able to let it go. It was a shame, though: she was smart, witty, hard-working, and attractive. But very, very neurotic. And instead of facing her issues, she engaged in a lot of avoidance behavior.

I will be back later from going with my kids to the Natural History Museum . Hopefully by then the picture of Tanya Gold and Joan Rivers will be out of my mind, or maybe less frightening. I truly thought for a moment that someone was wearing a Joan Rivers mask, then I realized I was seeing the effects of a lifetime supply of Botox.....injected all at once. Ms Gold is not much of a prize either. It sounds like she has Botox�d her sense of humor. And it's not that I don't like chubby girls, I just like ones with a sense of style and a sense of humor. I like the models for Torrid or Lane Bryant. Tanya......if you dress like a 50's librarian and come on like a psycho, you are shopping a niche market. I am dramallergic, like the men you encountered. I have exceeded my lifetime drama limit and wish to be exposed to no more of it.

amy - Awesome post. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Thanks so much.

So many comments. I hope this is useful:

In the book, "How to Win Friends & Influence People" by Dale Carnegie, he tells people to be service oriented: learn others names and listen to them. This is advice I read a lot in various executive communication books.

"smart" people who want to be liked listen to what people say and importantly, what they are waiting to hear. Stupid is as stupid does. If someone is book smart but can't communicate, they're no smarter than a second grader.

49 y/o Bikerken's standards:

NO Drugs. I grew up around them so much, I thought Pulp Fiction was the story of my teen age years. I feel like most of the women I meet are doing something. Hell, I live in Ocean Beach, what can you expect?
NO Kids. I grew up in a family of six kids. I hated it. I had to play parent to my younger siblings and I think that soured me on kids for the rest of my life. Iâ??m 49 and I think having kids at this age is sheer madness.
NO fat women. I just donâ??t find it attractive and could not crawl into a bed with a big blob. Tall women on the other hand are just fine, Iâ??ve dated a few over six foot two and love them.
NO women who are looking for a meal ticket. They are out there.
NO married women. I get this all the time, â??Oh, Iâ??m still married but weâ??re legally separated and waiting for the divorce to be finalizedâ? then you find out theyâ??re not really legally separated yet, still living together, then itâ??s OH SHIT, how did I get into the middle of this. Big mistake.
NO angry women. I am just the kind of man that makes them angry. Why pour fuel on the fire?

Most of these standards are quite reasonable except for the no kids part (most normal, healthy women will have had children by the age of 30 or so) and the no meal-ticket part.

Women's equality has turned out to be a simple money-grab: Women get paid the same (or more) as a man for similar work (note: housewifery isn't "similar work") but still expect men in general to earn about as much or more than they do and pick up the tab for first dates. The paid date is non-negotiable for nearly all of them. If they offer to pay (usually just their share, to the penny, no tip!), they're either emasculating or dumping you or they have "independence" issues.

You're willingness (and ability) to date taller women is a huge asset. Women are just as shallow about dating taller men as men are about not dating fat, unattractive women. We're just more honest about it.

As your biological clock moves forward, there are more and more women compatable and available for you both for "long term" relationships and short term "sex". When you hit your 50's, you'll be willing to date women in their late 30's who have children, but they may be out of the home (in school or even working and married.)

"So what was it? I've never figured it out."

You tried to move too fast. Simple problem, and entirely your fault.

If you're kissing her you're not "just friends", but she wasn't ready to have sex with you. In her mind the only way to make you stop was to say, "Let's just be friends."

If she DIDN'T kiss you, "Let's just be friends" followed by a "date" would mean she wants to talk about the guy she's REALLY interested in, and there is almost no advantage to being a woman's emotional baggage handler. But that wasn't your situation.

You should've just backed off a little and taken things a little more slowly. Some girls want you to overpower them with your animal urges, but some want you to take it easy. Try to learn the difference and you'll be more successful.

Trina wrote:
I don't know why men are scared or intimidated by women, but believe me, many of them are.

I remember reading a quote by Abraham Lincoln: "A woman is the only thing I am afraid of that I know will not hurt me."

Historians on the History channel claim that Lincoln may have been tricked into marriage by Mary Lincoln and was reported saying he was "going to the devil, I suppose" on his wedding day. (Then again, I'm not a big fan of Lincoln. I think he was just a warlord butcher.)

Women have a lot of legal power in our society. They can make false rape, DV, or sexual harassment claims and often do. If a man has sex with the wrong woman (even if she claims to be on the pill), she can stick him with 18 years of "child" support. At a whim, she can divorce a man and take 50% of his assets and his children.

Whether men are "afraid" of women, or just cautious, it behooves them to think carefully during interactions with them.

"So what was it? I've never figured it out."

You tried to move too fast. Simple problem, and entirely your fault.

And some people wonder why I don't think women should be allowed to vote...

Two people are kissing and there's a communications problem. Conclusion? It's the _man's_ fault, of course.

Is she capable of speaking? She could simply say "You're moving too fast." Instead, this is what happened later:

She says no, she wants to have dinner with a friend, and she'll split the tab. Fine. We go out. Once again, she's dressed very sexy, and once again, I get the eyes over dinner. And then at the end of dinner, she says "I didn't get to go to the bank today; would you be a dear and pick up the check?"

First off, many American women love to hide the expectation that men should pay their way behind the rationalization "asker pays" and in addition, if a man offers to pay or split the check, and doesn't bring money, she is like _soooo_ out of there! Yet, this woman thinks that just because she forgot to bring her money that he should pay for a dinner she invited him to?

No, she's not a psycho. She's just a good ol' fashioned selfish, manipulative user and there's millions of them in the states. She didn't have to be a genius. She probably has used this routine for years. The good news is that she'll probably meet her match in a male version of herself who will be more than happy to drain her dry emotionally.

A woman advises you that if you'd only gone "slower" things would be better. Bad bad bad advice! If anything, your being a "nice guy" and even bothering to ask that question put a big bullseye target on your back.

regarding men and their standard of beauty for women:
a lot of women are not pissed off simply because men want to be with attractive women. It's a little more complicated than than. Amy sticks up for men because she is obviously male-identified. I would not give a damn about men wanting attractive women if all things were equal. But as someone else mentioned, why is it that a man can the ugliest, baldest, fattest slob and he still believes he 'deserves' a beautiful woman? Also, very pretty even beautiful women date/are with men a helluva lot less attractive than them ALL THE TIME! Just look at a lot of celebrities. You see it everywhere. What is really going on here is that virtually every male believes he is entitled to a beautiful woman, no matter what. This is because we live in a P-A-T-R-I-A-R-C-H-Y, yes, that horrible word us feminazis love to use. A woman's biggest value in our society is her looks, plain & simple. Also, women are looked on as property. Most males believe they have a right to be a judge of women, well, that's because society gives them that right. Women are forever in a beauty contest. It destroys the female soul and, most conveniently, constantly pits girls and women against one another. It doesn't matter what men look like. Men are not the chattel here. So here we are in this vicious game. Men can have their pick, as the women try to claw their way to the top of the beauty chain. Angry man-hating bith? YOU BETCHA. I can perfectly understand why lots are women are bitter. Bitter indeed. And for women like Amy, well hasn't it always been easier to identify with the oppressor? Boy, just think of the perks. Just play the game, agree with what they have to say-makes life so much easier huh? Men will always appreciate a little help from the inside, just as Master always appreciated the polite manners and gentle nature of the house n****er. After all, house n***er got to work in pleasant surroundings, no back-breaking work for them. Sounds familiar. And oh, how we love to misuse biology and evolution to validate what we think anyway. How reassuring it is that evolution & biology back up our cherished beliefs. And that little bit about how the Guardian writer should be all ashamed about 'burning our men, not our bras,' well you see actually that comment is pretty innocent with no teeth because gee, I don't know-women don't have too much of a history of murdering men, either for sport, pleasure, politics or whatnot. Men, on the other hand...So you see, I don't think too many men are going to be cowering in the corner over that one. And besides that, the comment was obviously not neant to be taken literally. But I know, I know...in order to be a good house n***er, you have to be ready to defend Master at every imagined slight, every little insult, every little threat. There now. Calm down. Doggy did a good job today. Master so lucky to have such a loyal friend.

"A woman advises you that if you'd only gone 'slower' things would be better. Bad bad bad advice!"

It's great advice. First, I'm a guy (my dog's name is Laika) and my advice is based on experience. Second, SHE WAS KISSING YOU! She wasn't using you to talk about other men -- a sure sign she sees you as some kind of court eunuch -- SHE WAS KISSING YOU!

If you're getting some action she's not using you. Almost no woman would pretend to be physically attracted to you -- and express it physically -- just to have a "good friend" to talk to.

If she says something like, "I know we're just friends, but when I'm with you I feel so confused," then you end up kissing, news flash, you're not "just friends". Women say crap like that all the time. What they DON'T do is kiss guys they're not attracted to. They find the very idea revolting. Believe me, if you're getting any action at all you're not "just friends". You're a contender.

"If anything, your being a 'nice guy' and even bothering to ask that question put a big bullseye target on your back."

"Nice guy" is indeed the kiss of death, but repeatedly putting your hands all over a girl who isn't ready is also the kiss of death. You do have to make a move -- if you don't it's straight to the "nice guy" ghetto for sure -- but if a girl isn't the type who likes to be taken like an animal on the first date, repeatedly making passes isn't going to magically transform her into a wild beast, it's just going to piss her off.

All you need is that first move to short-circuit the "nice guy" treatment. No girl is going to use you as her crying towel once you've made a move. You can't be the neutered confessor she needs once that boundary is breached. If you make a pass it forces a fork in the road. If she stops you cold delete her number from your cell and her baggage becomes somebody else's problem. If she wants another couple of "friend dates" that end in make-out sessions before she goes all the way with you, you should recognize the opportunity. Not every race is a sprint -- have a little confidence in your ability to go the distance.

You were at least right about not explicitly asking what the boundaries are. Nothing kills the mood like lawyers in the bedroom.

Amy J: "Women are forever in a beauty contest."

Only with yourselves. If you look good in torn up sweatpants we guys are totally ok with that. All you really need is to be fit. "Fashion" is a torture you inflict on yourselves. Like I would even know Armani from Wal-Marti, let alone care.

This is totally ridiculous. The first woman I asked out after my divorce was one with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from UC Berkeley. She is a theoretician/computer programmer with an interest in thermodynamics. We hit it off on quantum mechanics. I'll take her anytime over a florist.

Some have asked why men so intimidated by women. Let met try to answer from a man's perspective. I think there are two main fears.
/p
The first is fear of rejection. When a man initially approaches a women romantically, there are only a few outcomes
/p
1. The woman accepts his advance.
2. The woman provides a non-committal response.
3. The woman rebuffs him in a pleasant fashion.
4. The women rebuffs him in an unpleasant fashion.
/p
I recognize that there is a good chance I'll be turned down. Which is not, by itself, that big a deal. What is terribly frightening is #4.
/p
The fear is not that a lady will turn me down with a 'no thanks, I'm already seeing someone' or some other gentle lie. It is that I'll get the icy imperial stare, followed by a cruel statement akin to 'how dare you breathe the same air, verimin!' That's the rejection that I fear. The fear that makes me want some alcohol-based courage or to just stay home and play warcraft instead.
/p
The second real fear I feel is much harder to describe. It's bascially the fear that this captivating womman will turn into a harpy. Kind of like the final scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark, where the angelic figures turn into demonic ones.
/p
Most of us, Miss Gold excepted, try to put our best foot forward when dating. Even the sun has spots, so I know as the relationship develops there will be areas where both parties are 'less than perfect.' I don't worry about that too much. /p
What I am scared of is the major personality changes. Where the engaging lady I've been dateing becomes manipulative, vindicitive, controlling or just plain mean. Where did this doppelganger come from and what have you done with my sweetheart?
/p
I don't know what brings a change like this on. Too much time reading Cosmo? A jealous girlfriend at work perhaps? In any case, I'm scared that it's going to happen and that I'll be ducking ashtrays. And if it does happen, when? Will it be after she moves in, we get engaged, married, kids, or perhaps never? (I'm sure women have similar concerns about their McConnahey turning into a Bundy as well.)
/p
Those are the main two reasons, I'm intimidated by women. I can't speak for all men, but I wouldn't think they are too much different.

If she was a "brilliant" human rights lawyer, perchance a little powder to tone down the glare?

And if you were a smart, attractive man - why would you aim so low to attempt a connection with an angry conceited fat woman? Just askin'!

Can you say "Malignant Narcissism? Can you say Sadistic, Machiavellian Troglodyte? I'll bet you can. I like the way you say that. What other twisted depths into the sewers can Gold lower herself to? We shouldnt burn "our" men.....we should incarcerate "our" feminazis.