🚀 go-pugleaf

There is SO much here that I think is completely screwed up (From my
perspective) interlaced with things that ring true... it's hard to respond
to it all. Of course, I'm giving it one more try. 

 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:
> > (stuff that doesn't need to be posted 50 times more)
> 
> Then you have an odd perception.  Your translation bears no resemblance to
> what he said.  He said that many of malekind bear no relationship to the
> feminine 'ideals' of maleness that populate the media (What? Did you expect
> that females are the only people on the planet subject to an unrealistic
> standard of beauty?).  Not that many of malekind are "ugly mugs" whose
> money is "the only way we can get laid."  

John said:

> >> 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...

> >>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.)

> >>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. 

> >>  I really don't think this really
> >> is the preferred mode of living & loving; but for a certain segment of
> >> the male population they're quite grateful this mode exists.
> >>
> >>   - John

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. 

My framework: John's previously talked about the 3-date-bedding rule... 
and now is talking about how you can attract babes with $ if you're not 
physically attractive. And there's been much talk about the desire to get 
a woman in bed ASAP in the dating process to see if she's any good.

(John later said that he didn't like doing this himself. I had thought he 
was talking about himself, given the presentation, but he cleared up this 
point.)

(me) 
> >My point... maybe it's the only way you can get laid on the first date by
> >barbie dolls who want big bucks. But you're missing the point.

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.

David goes on to say:
> Lord knows I've seen
> enough cases of couples who generated in me the initial response, "How in
> the hell did they ever get married?"  When the apparrent attractiveness of
> the two principles is seriously skewed, the reason for the relationship
> tends to be 'childhood sweetheart'.  I also know that the richer you are,
> the easier it is for you to find an attractive partner regardless of your
> looks.  This theme holds both for men and women.  The gold-diggers are
> called 'bimbos' if they are female, and 'gigolos' if they are male.  What I
> do know is that the average person gets an average partner, and the
> exceptional person gets an exceptional partner.  However, the things
> factored into 'average' and 'exceptional' include beauty, physique,
> intellect, wealth, and power *in equal measure*.  
etc

Of course beauty and wealth are important to the "exceptional" partners. 
That is EXACTLY what I meant when I said, in reply to John's posting, that
what he said was true *if you want to bed barbie dolls*. 

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. 

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.

>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... 

>        If you are like all
> of middle-class everywhere, 

... since I'm *not* like middle class everywhere. This may be because I
don't watch television; I grew up without one in the house. It is a VERY
big impact on people, their thoughts, what they've been conditioned to
believe is attractive. And I don't have a 5 minute attention span, which
is IMHO another feature of the Television Generation. I plant trees... not
just annuals. 

>      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.

> There are a cases where mutual knowledge of each other, in depth, plays an
> important part in starting a relationship, but these instances are based in
> cases where, through no virtue of their own, the two principles have to get
> to know each other for other reasons. 
> ...
> three bases. However, casual introductions still are based in the Big Five.

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. 

--Louise, the woman from mars