🚀 go-pugleaf

In group soc.women, article <Pine.BSI.3.91.960504132014.496B-100000@mv.mv.com>,
-=Weezel=- <louise@mv.mv.com> wrote:

...

> On 3 May 1996, David C. Wright wrote:
>
>> In group soc.women, article <Pine.BSI.3.91.960502002845.8866D-100000@mv.mv.com>,
>> -=Weezel=- <louise@mv.mv.com> wrote in response to John Cooley:

...

>> >> Weezel, plenty of us guys know how much money can be an aphrodisiac; in
>> >> fact we're quite thankful for it.  
>
>ie. he said women are attracted to money and this is a lucky thing...

Indeed a good thing, but not the *only* thing, and not *only* for ugly
mugs.  Beatiful people with lots of money obviously have an advantage over
ugly people with lots of money.

>> >>That is, not all of us can look like
>> >> Sean Connery or Tom Sellick.  
>
>...because not all guys are hunks. (he names two hunks... perhaps I'm 
>weird for women because I never watch TV and have a difficult time 
>picturing either guy. Hmm.)

Those are former-day hunks.  Nowadays a better set of names would be Denzel
Washington and Charlie Sheen.  There are many others.  Go down to the local
theatre, and pick off the male leads in all the features.  Most of them are
latter-day hunks.  There are dozens of them.  Men are bombarded with them
all the time, much as women are constantly bombarded with Sharon Stone,
Cathy Ireland, _et al_.

>> >>It's sort of the oldest known basis of
>> >> male/female human relationships....  
>
>This is a direct reference to the "oldest profession" which is 
>prostitution. Using money to attract women is like paying for sex. 

No, this is a reference to the "oldest profession", which is mate.
Prostitution came along later when there was disposable wealth to spread
around.  However, in the ancient mists of time, one can scarcely believe
that the ability to provide food, shelter, protection, and healthy children
were not all major factors in choosing a mate of either sex, just as they
are now.  The media of exchange have shifted, but the primary purposes
remain the same.

...

>That he would prefer that this didn't happen but many guys are grateful 
>it does. I assume this means the segment of the male population that 
>doesn't include really handsome/cute/hunky guys. And thus that most of 
>these guys need to take advantage of this mode of attraction. 

They don't *need* to.  However, if you are not "handsome/cute/hunky", then
being intelligent/wealthy/powerful, is certainly *not* an impediment to
finding an attractive mate - quite the reverse.  As the (somewhat cynical)
old saying goes, "Money can't buy you love, but it certainly improves your
bargaining position."

...

>David:
>> My point... virtually anybody can attract a woman.  
>...this continues into personal data on how he can attract women...
>
>At this point we are agreeing, although you are trying to disagree with
>me. I was saying exactly this. You do NOT have to be a gorgous hunk or
>dripping with money to have women go for you UNLESS you are trying to
>attract the highly attractive women, many of whom require this.

Which is precisely the point.  The greater proportion of each of beauty/
physique/intelligence/wealth/power that you can present, the better your
chances of attracting a highly attractive mate.  Obviously, there are only
a few of these persons going around, and most people settle for some
combination of the five that suits their personal requirements.

...

>And you continue...  "average guys end up with average women" and the only
>way to beat those odds (which you present, to my reading, as a good thing
>to beat) is to become rich enough to attract babes. 
>
>I'm not disputing that what you've seen is true - my single experience is 
>much less than most of yours, due to having been in relationships most of 
>my adult life. I just don't think that it's a problem. 

It's not a problem.  It's just a fact.  I'll never attract one of those
'barbie dolls', and I'm not certain that I would chose to do so (she would
have to be more than just a 'barbie doll' - I find stupidity immensely
tedious).  All I'm saying is that the ability to attract an exceptional
mate is based, not just on looks, but on a hybrid of five traits that can
be used as a total index, in which an excess in one area can compensate for
a limitation in another area.

In the end, most people wind up with somebody who is, by the sum of the
indexes, more or less equivalent to themselves.  So somebody
average-looking but wealthy might find somebody beautiful but of average
means.  Somebody rich but stupid might attract somebody well-built but
powerless.  I'm saying that, all other things being equal, a penalty in one
area can be made up by an excess in another area.  If you graph all five
characteristics on a bar graph with a y-axis that is +10 to -10, and an
x-axis that is traits one to five, and sum the areas of the bars, then if
the areas are more or less equal, then two such individuals could find each
other attractive, based on elements that are not necessarily related to
their physical beauty.

>I really believe that average looking women, regardless of $ status, are 
>more practical in this matter than average looking men. We aren't all 
>looking for the GQ type guy. And I really DOUBT that men are all looking 
>for babes, although you would think so from many of the postings in this 
>newsgroup.

That is certainly true, and my theory reflects this.

>>David said (after a paragraph on how personality-based relationships 
>start, if/when they do:
> 
>> You say these things like women do not play a part in it.  Have you ever
>> gone out with a person simply because you found them attractive?  Or do you
>> *always* date anybody, so that you can explore their personality, and find
>> a person who might spiritually meet your goals, and even exceed them,
>> regardless of appearance, power, or wealth?  You submit that appearance is
>> irrelevant, but *who do you* choose to date, and how?  
>
>I have gone out with guys I find attractive. Funny thing is, they thought
>they were ugly. The reason I was dating them wasn't their appearance -
>it was a bonus. My idea of attractive might not be the same as "most" 
>women's... 

Are you speaking of attractive here in terms of beauty and physique?  Or in
terms of the five elements of attractiveness that I have proposed?  If you
are speaking in terms of the five elements, then you are acting as the
theory predicts.  if you are not, then you have failed to address three of
the five elements, and their effects on your choices.

...

>>      you choose primarily on the basis of what
>> transpires in the first five minutes, not on the basis of an extended
>> exploration of a person's personality.  This is practically universal, and
>> I doubt that any serious adult even *questions* it.
>
>Yeah, maybe... but I'm an empath so it works.;-) Actually, I question it. 
>So I guess I"m not a serious adult. That's fine. I prefer being an artist.

So you assert that you can accurately judge a person's personality in the
first five minutes?  If you truly have that ability, then you are to be
congratulated on having a rare trait.  If you don't, then you are guilty of
profound hubris.

...

>Casual introductions are something totally new to me. Perhaps this is why
>I'm not like other women in how I look at men. I meet people and look at
>them as... *people*. Not as trophies or financial support units. I'm
>independant, make a decent living, own a home... I don't need a meal
>ticket. I don't care for bimbos or snobs, male or female. I do demand that
>I'm not someone else's financial support, or mother, or maid - this is
>where I look at a guy's finances and lifestyle to see if he's living on
>his own (not with mom) and knows how to do that. 
>
>And... here's the really odd part... all of my single female friends feel
>the same way. 

So what you are saying here is that you are looking for (*ahem*) an
_equal_?  Imagine that.  My point is that what constitutes an equal does
not depend on being at the same level on all five criterion at the same
time.  My argument does not circulate around whether or not you would
choose an equal, but *how* you would assess that equality on an initial
introduction.  Once that is done, a supplementary period of assessment is
axiomatic.

-- 
        David C. Wright - wrightd@magic.mb.ca  PGP public key at:
                 http://www.magic.mb.ca/~wrightd

     Be careful of your thoughts, they may become words at any moment.