🚀 go-pugleaf

In group soc.women, article <Pine.BSI.3.91.960502002845.8866D-100000@mv.mv.com>,
-=Weezel=- <louise@mv.mv.com> wrote:
>(I've removed alt.personals because this is NOT a personals ad.)
>
>On Thu, 2 May 1996, John Cooley wrote:
>
>> -=Weezel=-  <louise@mv.mv.com> wrote:
>> >I personally know women who play the game for men because they KNOW they 
>> >will get the financial rewards of doing so. This includes the "response" 
>> >this guy's talking about. It also includes "doing it" (I assume he means 
>> >having sexual relations) on the first date. They simply do not care in 
>> >what manner they access the wallet, or whose wallet it is... And they are 
>> >very good actresses. They're very lovey until they either drain the 
>> >wallet, find a better one, or get bored. 
>> 
>> Weezel, plenty of us guys know how much money can be an aphrodisiac; in
>> fact we're quite thankful for it.  That is, not all of us can look like
>> Sean Connery or Tom Sellick.  It's sort of the oldest known basis of
>> male/female human relationships....    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
>
>Ah yes, John... if there was one part of my posting you'd respond to it 
>would be this part. 
>
>My point was "look, if you're getting sex fast, this is one likelihood of
>what it is and it's rather worthless - if you wait, if you look for women
>who wait, maybe you'll find something else, something where the woman is
>not just after your money." (I also mentioned another possibility, but
>didn't discuss it as it's not my thing and other women have discussed it.)
>
>YOU took it and said, "yeah, some women are after money, and those of us 
>with truely ugly mugs appreciate this fact as it's the only way we can 
>get laid." 
>
>(I believe that's a fairly direct translation of what you said...)

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."  I get laid to my satisfaction,
and do not satisfy the media's interpretation of what a good-looking man
looks like, but I'm not ugly by any stretch, or, for that matter, rich.
What he states, quite clearly to me, is that, if you don't happen to be
such a gorgeous hunk that 75% of all females will happily fall into bed
with just for the sake of a major physical attraction, being well-off is
certainly an additional selling point that can ease one's ability to find a
partner.  I've seen lots of rich, powerful, mediocre-looking people with
gorgeous partners, but I've never encountered a poor, ugly slob with
anything except a poor, ugly partner, despite what the fairy tales tell us.
In general, people of a given level of attractiveness will gravitate to
partners like themselves in attractiveness.  The only visible medium that
ever skews this tendency is wealth and power.

>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. I've dated 
>"cute" guys and I've dated guys whose looks would not win any awards. And 
>those between. You do not have to be something that looks like it should 
>be on television to interest women... nor do you have to buy us.

My point... virtually anybody can attract a woman.  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*.  A pug-ugly male with a
good brain, good physique, and lots of power and wealth can attract a
female with great looks and a great body, little grey matter, and no power
or assets to speak of, and vice-versa.  They are both exceptional in
different ways.  This much is axiomatic.  To assert that wealth is
irrelevant in these matters seems to me naive.

>What I said in the rest of my posting, and in numerous other postings, is
>BE A FRIEND. BE A HUMAN. BE PRESENT. It's that attitude you have, that
>we're the enemy and/or to be used... really unattractive. Much more so
>than most any face you could possibly have. Or even the extra 30 lbs
>around your waist. 

That attitude *does hold* in conditions where all other factors are
approximately equal. Given approximately equal beauty, physique, intellect,
power, and wealth, two people will tend to judge each other basically on
personality.  In fact, personality can, of itself, overcome a shortage in
one or two of the five 'elements of attractiveness'.  In that respect, it
could be said to deserve a place as the sixth element, but it does not.
Why?  Because to know the personality, you have to be acquainted for a
time, and an acquaintance is likely to be initiated on the basis of the
'five elements'.  Consequently, the more of the five you can present, the
better the chance that a relationship will be initiated.  *After* that
point, personality comes into play.  It is a secondary element.  After a
relationship is initiated, it may come to pass that a lack of personality
could dissolve it, but the relationship cannot be dissolved unless it
starts in the first place.

>IF you're willing to look further than skin deep and to wait until you
>have time to explore what is deeper, you just might find a woman who wants
>you for YOU, for what is under your skin and in your mind and heart. She
>might not have the barbie looks, though. She might not be 28. Or, she
>might not want to be wanted simply for her looks, and would say no to sex
>on the first date. So you'd write her off, from what I can tell of what
>you've written here. 
>
>And so you (and others like you) will continue to buy barbies and gripe
>when they turn out to be vampiristic. 
>
>Oh well. I'll go find me a real *human* type guy to talk to. Maybe even
>tonight. *grin*

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?  If you are like all
of middle-class everywhere, 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.

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.  Among those reasons are A) mutual
friends who constantly bring two people together, so that they get to know
each other, B)  Relationships that begin in the workplace, and C) People
who share common hobbies or interests in the same place.  Therefore, it is
no accident that many successful relationships start from one of these
three bases. However, casual introductions still are based in the Big Five.

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

      "Any program that works perfectly just isn't tested properly!"