Lately, it occurs to me that a picture of a beautiful woman in a fine car represents a horrible thing. Look at the cultural icon - the fine blonde in the fancy sports car with the license plate, "WAS HIS".

Hah - good point.

All I can think of right now is that it's simply not in a man's interest to marry. In fact, he's plenty stupid to consider it. He has so much to lose.

I wonder if one day a woman in an LTR with a man will be able to sue him to marry her. I think someday someone will try it. Can't you just see it? You know someone's going to try it.

The argument will sound like, "I've been with this man for 8 years, had a child by him and stood by him when the business failed and as he rebuilt it! I'm entitled to the rights, privileges and pretensions of a legal spouse for my years of loyalty."

Oh, Amy, you might want to correct the spelling in the heading of this blog entry. I looked at it and thought it was possibly an intentional error, pointing out the stupidity of something. But having read the article, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Patrick, you are late to the game:

"Palimony is an award of support, similar to alimony, in which the couple were not married but lived together for a long period and then terminated their relationship. A determining factor in awarding such support is whether there was an agreement that one partner would support the other in return for the second making a home and performing other domestic duties beyond sexual pleasures. However, not all courts require cohabitation as a prerequisite to the finding of an implied agreement between unmarried persons concerning their property.

In 1976, Michelle Marvin unsuccessfully sued her boyfriend, Lee Marvin claiming that they had a marriage like relationship and that she was entitled to his property as if they were married. However, the court said that she did have a right to sue based on her claims of a significant relationship arising out of cohabitation and that others could follow in her footsteps. This broke ground for a new breed of lawsuits and appellate decisions as the courts continue to determine this new area of law. This type of suit is now referred to as a "Marvin" action or, less formally, as a palimony suit.

Generally, a palimony plaintiff must prove some other underlying basis for his or her claim, such as an express or implied contract. In California and certain other states, the courts enforce most agreements between unmarried cohabitants regarding their property. These agreements fall into three categories: implied, oral , and written.

Implied Agreements: Implied agreements are unspoken "understandings" between two people which can be implied from their conduct. A jury may find that the cohabitants had an "understanding" that one person would always support the other, even if the relationship broke up, based on past behavior of providing financial support.

Oral Agreements: An oral agreement is an agreement made through spoken words and are difficult to prove, especially when memories fade or a party to the agrement isn't truthful.

Written Agreements: Written agreements are the preferred form of agreement for allowing the parties to communicate and clarify their expectations of each other. Written agreements may avoid many of the problems of proof of intentions and expectations involved in oral and implied agreements.

Other theories on which a palimony suit can be based include promissory estoppel and quantum merit

Spartee, that isn't quite what I meant. From what I know of palimony, it still implies financial support first.

I was suggesting that someone could sue to become someone's spouse merely on the grounds of years of loyalty, not necessarily financial support.

Now we know a Bentley works, so I'm wondering (just curious, happily married and wanting to stay that way) where the cutoff is?

How about a Mustang? What about a Mazda Miata? Or is the vulgar saying about older guys and sports cars true? Is a Lexus enough, or does it take a Rolls or a Bentley or an Aston Martin?

Is this only true of Brits, or does it apply elsewhere?

I'm going to hypothesize that scarcity has its own appeal. Anyway, blue eyes and a little height didn't hurt me a bit in Japan... I can assure you it wasn't my car.

The comments in the original article were a hoot.

A historian reported that similar marriage and divorce laws in the final years of the Roman Empire turned men off, of marriage so badly that they stopped marrying altogether, and one of the Caesars passed a law if a man wasn't married by page 35, all his property was confiscated. So, the men started marrying foreign wives.

We haven't got that far yet, though a bachelor tax has been seriously proposed. And, certain extremist groups are passing laws attempting to reduce men marrying FW here. There will be more laws like this.

This sort of thing seems historically to happen just before the end of the civilization, and it doesn't seem to be a coincidence it happens at the end.

"Women may be more attracted to a costly car than a cheap car, all else being equal, but male wealth doesn't make the top five or 10 criteria for their mate choice," says Miller. "They care more about kindness, intelligence and other personality traits like sense of humour, creativity and emotional stability."

This claim is absolute bullshit. Financial standing is always int he top ten, usually the top 3 - 5, often 1 or 2.

The researchers seem to be going out of their way to explain away or defend these preferences. I seriously doubt they'd do the same for men when it comes to the preference from youth.

Back in high school, if I asked a particular friend of mine about her newest boyfriend, the first thing she mentioned was what kind of car he drove.

Unlike me, she could also tell what kind of car was approaching at night by the headlights. I always thought she just had a thing for cars.

Cars say a lot about a person. I wouldn't date someone who drove an SUV (unless they had a damn good reason for needing one)... we wouldn't have compatible values. I'd be friends with an SUV-driver but I wouldnt marry one.

Bumped into an old girlfriend some time ago.

Her: (flirt flirt, hair toss) Hiiiiii ... you look good! (1) where are you working? (2) what are you driving?

Me: (Aw hell, it's the girl who bailed out when times got tough) My old Jeep.

Her: Well, um, 'bye!

Note to self: start attracting different type of woman.

Wait until she bails you out, though.

Heh, Sandy, what people SAY on a form and what really matters to them inside is VERY different. Sure, there are more than a few chicas that will marry the metro guy who drives the honda fit and shops exclusively at whole foods. The status he is showing by that is just different than if he was acting in a different way. It is still status driven.

I can remember a few women I have known that were always talking about how a guys car was very much him trying to make up for defecits in his manhood. Every one of those women were ball-busters, who eventually found somebody docile to dominate. In that case, they wanted someone low status, because they were already 'wearing the pants' as the old saying goes.

The bottom line, seems like, is that humans want to see potential in a mate from a distance. For guys, we can see that waist/hip ratio, and rack from a distance, BEFORE we start talking. Women don't really have such good indicators about guys, because wealth and the ability to provide are more implicit than physical. Perhaps that's why I used to get hit on all the time when I was still married, and was with the kids... perhaps there was no better way to tell that I could provide, than that I already was...

I think you're making too big a deal out of the car and the wallet as the only mate-worthy qualities any woman ever looks for. That's a bit too shallow. I like a nice car, sure, but the driver had better not be a cad or the deal is OFF.

All I require of aspiring mates is that they have their OWN job, their OWN apartment, and their OWN TRANSPORTATION.

Because that all I require of myself, too.

the driver had better not be a cad or the deal is OFF

"Tiresome that somebody always has to trot that out."

Yes, it IS tiresome, isn't it? I sure wish I could just suck it up and suck it down like all those Cosmo readers seem to do.

I mean… we accept that gays and lesbians may be a statistical minority but a legitimate one - why then are all women doomed to be status-obsessed car-chasing nitwits? Too simplistic, doesn't fit me, and doesn't fit most of the people I know, either.

Doesn't fit you, either, Amy, at least not from what you've shared about yourself and your independence.

so Vi... it's about initial attractions, BEFORE you know them, just like it's how those hips sway before I even make eye contact...

Later comes the less shallow stuff about how he isn't a cad, and how he makes you laugh, has a job and so forth. And all this doesn't apply 100% natually. I know total bums that can chat up women at an astonishing pace. It's just part of their personality.

I'd say the point is about that first moment, and what you show before any other communication is made. If you hate the rugged outdorsey type, then you prolly wont talk to a guy with a mud covered jeep [right Gog?].

In any case I'd bet it's much harder to measure than a guys interest, because we are almost pavlovian.

vi said:
> All I require of aspiring mates is that they have
> their OWN job, their OWN apartment, and their OWN
> TRANSPORTATION.

So, you wouldn't date a guy who doesn't own a car?

"it's about initial attractions, BEFORE you know them"

OK I'll buy that for a dollar. I'm glad to hear that fleeting-first-impressions don't equate chosen-mate-for-life.

Sometimes the pop media descriptions of these "studdies" don't make the distinction between longitudinal studies of who actually gets married (and STAYS married) versus quickie speed-dating studies where they show people a bunch of photos and ask them to rate the guys based on little to no information.

It's not like I've never felt attraction to powerful high-status men JUST BECAUSE of their power. And it's not like I worship nerdy, reliable chumps for their good-hearted honesty alone. But my attraction to the alphas is in direct proportion to the extremity of crisis.

Also I think my idea of "powerful" isn't always "wealthy" or "fast car". It could be "good in a fight" or "calm in a crisis" or even "knows how to climb a cliff". A man who's got a fancy car had better be a skilled driver or it's just an empty front. We've all heard hot-rodders who vroom extra loud and thought "small penis" to ourselves, haven't we?

Maybe it's physically powerful and a strong, confident personality. Not domineering. Just confident. If he gets knocked down, he gets right back up. And he should know how to dance, too. And how to dress.

Where's THAT in these so-called "studdies"?

Back to the rate-people-by-photo: I DO rate people from photos, but mostly action photos that show their face clearly. Facial expression is very telling, as is stance. I would actually consider a car to be a distraction.

True confidence and social poise are harder to measure than a car. I think a car is a shorthand or a stand-in for these other, more elusive qualities.

how 'bout a different tack...

"It's not like I've never felt attraction to powerful high-status men JUST BECAUSE of their power." vi

sure, but how did they GET that power? What attributes about them as men allowed that status. That is why we are looking for proxies. You can't see the attributes directly, but you see the potential offshoot of them.

"True confidence and social poise are harder to measure than a car." vi

That is certainly true, but where you have one, what are the odds you will find the other? ESPECIALLY in someone who is available. I know a couple of higher ups that have plenty of status and power, but drive old ford escorts to work. They are married and settled, own the house, and are looking for something dirt cheap to get to work. They aren't available. But you should see their toys in the garage. motorcylces, Porsches, and campers, etc...

They have interests in all those things, and the ability to get them and use them. When they DO drive those vehicles, it causes a signal. You should see their wives at company picnics... ready to pounce at the slightest provocation on any other woman around. It's an interesting thing to watch.

@SwissArmyD: "sure, but how did they GET that power? What attributes about them as men allowed that status."

Good question. Did they GET it or did they EARN it? Interesting notes on the higher ups who drive old Fords, too. Apparently one of the biggest Mafiosi in all of Italy lived in a one room apartment and didn't flash his money. But, he had the Power to be sure, and he knew it, so did everyone else.

Interesting too about the higher-ups' wives being ready to pounce at every company picnic. That part is so very true. And there are plenty of women hanging around just waiting to snatch up that alpha the instant he's available. I think that it's partly that the wives haven't really earned their own power, or they don't feel that they have. They are riding on the coattails of someone else's greatness and they know it. If they were really the equal of their spouses, that would mean mentally as well as in terms of external social status.

It did seem to me that women were nicer to me after I started driving my Retina Searing Yellow Audi TT. Make of that what you will.

@Steve Daniels

At my old karate school a lot of the men would start getting more attention from lower-ranked women within the school the minute they got their black belts.

This didn't seem to apply to the women who got their black belts, but there were too few female senior students to generalize, and the ones that did make it that far were a more serious bunch. If they dated a male white belt, it was less of an affair and more of a real affinity and no doubt the male would have to have the confidence to keep up.

I'm realizing that one reason Amy's so obsessed with this Me-Tarzan-Me-Alpha-Male thing is that most of the folks who write to her for advice are probably asking to hear that 2+2=5. But before they can become the chick magnet or sultry babe they'd desperately like to be, they need basic coaching on things like presenting themselves well to the opposite sex. It's the lowest common denominator for losers to say, "Well I'm 300 lbs but I want a woman who's a perfect Size 6… no fair!"

People who are happy don't write to advice columnists asking what they're doing RIGHT.

So maybe I'll take back all my protests about how shallow and limiting this all is. All I can say is I'm happy if the guy has a car that actually works. If it's a smooth-driving late-model hot rod, well, I just hope he can afford the payments.

My only thought is, well...it seems to me that most of the time the girl is not going to see the guys vehicle until they are already dating.

The folks who organize the hot-rod exposition hereabouts have given the thumbs down to a vendor's proposition to sell an herbal version of Viagra. They say that it's not appropriate for a family event. Thought that was sorta funny.

Pictures of rich successful women only say one thing to me, "I don't need you."

Who wants to be in a relationship where the other doesn't need them?

Pictures of rich successful women only say one thing to me, "I don't need you."
Who wants to be in a relationship where the other doesn't need them?

Picture of girl-on-girl action say the same thing to me, but men sure seem to love watching it.