Here is the reason to get married... Now with scientific prove.

[amoka]

Here we go... now you have a reason to be married.

 

[WaterTiger]

Ms. Zielinski, the fashion stylist, said her best friend, a man, told her once: “ ‘You are confident, have good credit, own your own business, travel around the world and are self-sufficient. What man is going to want you?’ He laughed, but I found that pretty depressing.”

I don't know... How about a guy that also has his sh!t together as well?

Come on guys! DO women like this REALLY scare you? (Providing, of course, she doesn't have a "ball-buster" attitude.)

 

[Jitterbug]

Ms. Zielinski, the fashion stylist, said her best friend, a man, told her once: “ ‘You are confident, have good credit, own your own business, travel around the world and are self-sufficient. What man is going to want you?’ He laughed, but I found that pretty depressing.”

I don't know... How about a guy that also has his sh!t together as well?

Come on guys! DO women like this REALLY scare you? (Providing, of course, she doesn't have a "ball-buster" attitude.)

I'm pretty sure that guy does not want a woman who's that arrogant as well as clueless about what men are attracted to.

How about: healthy, fit, physically/sexually attractive, good at cooking, pleasant to be around, good with children, good ladylike manners...?

Bloody hell, those are like dirty words these days.

But I forgot, she's self sufficient, confident, intelligent and successful, plus she has AFC friends blowing smoke up her arse, so she has no need for a man. And then she wonders why no man worth his salt needs her.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

spin this pop crap all you want, but men find younger, feminine women more attractive then older, non feminine women. The older and more "successful" a women becomes, they less attractive she'll be to her male counterparts.

The "ideal woman" for every guy is young, sexy, healthy and nice to look at. The older she gets, the less appeal she has, regardless of her income or career success.

Women can delude themselves into thinking they are becoming "the prize" as the increase their career success, but in eyes of men, they are becoming less and less desirable, and more and more of a "last ditch option" for guys that otherwise wouldn't have a chance.

Just like younger guys with no game and no money aren't attractive to hot women, older women with no femininity aren't attractive to successful men.

The tragedy for these women is that they've deluded themselves into thinking that if they become more and more like men, they'll become more attractive to men, when in reality the opposite is happening. The only guys they are becoming attractive to are young chumps that otherwise wouldn't have a chance in their local meat market, to whom of course they feel no attraction themselves.

Life can indeed be cruel, especially to women who've listened to the feminist propaganda and squandered their youth, and small window of prime sexual attractiveness.

But they've got their career, and they're money, so I guess that's something.

 

[jophil28]

spin this pop crap all you want, but men find younger, feminine women more attractive then older, non feminine women. The older and more "successful" a women becomes, they less attractive she'll be to her male counterparts.

The "ideal woman" for every guy is young, sexy, healthy and nice to look at. The older she gets, the less appeal she has, regardless of her income or career success.

Women can delude themselves into thinking they are becoming "the prize" as the increase their career success, but in eyes of men, they are becoming less and less desirable, and more and more of a "last ditch option" for guys that otherwise wouldn't have a chance.

Just like younger guys with no game and no money aren't attractive to hot women, older women with no femininity aren't attractive to successful men.

The tragedy for these women is that they've deluded themselves into thinking that if they become more and more like men, they'll become more attractive to men, when in reality the opposite is happening. The only guys they are becoming attractive to are young chumps that otherwise wouldn't have a chance in their local meat market, to whom of course they feel no attraction themselves.

Life can indeed be cruel, especially to women who've listened to the feminist propaganda and squandered their youth, and small window of prime sexual attractiveness.

But they've got their career, and they're money, so I guess that's something.

^^ one of your best observations ...reps

 

[Luthor Rex]

Come on guys! DO women like this REALLY scare you? (Providing, of course, she doesn't have a "ball-buster" attitude.)

When will you women learn that "successful" women do not scare us. We just don't care about their success. Fat chicks don't scare us either, and they are invisible to us too.

A woman who is always on the go can't put her family first, can't put us first. Therefore we have no use for her.

This isn't a complicated issue. The only reason women can't "understand" it is because it hurts your egos to know the truth.

:yes:

 

[grinder]

spin this pop crap all you want, but men find younger, feminine women more attractive then older, non feminine women. The older and more "successful" a women becomes, they less attractive she'll be to her male counterparts.

The "ideal woman" for every guy is young, sexy, healthy and nice to look at. The older she gets, the less appeal she has, regardless of her income or career success.

Women can delude themselves into thinking they are becoming "the prize" as the increase their career success, but in eyes of men, they are becoming less and less desirable, and more and more of a "last ditch option" for guys that otherwise wouldn't have a chance.

Just like younger guys with no game and no money aren't attractive to hot women, older women with no femininity aren't attractive to successful men.

The tragedy for these women is that they've deluded themselves into thinking that if they become more and more like men, they'll become more attractive to men, when in reality the opposite is happening. The only guys they are becoming attractive to are young chumps that otherwise wouldn't have a chance in their local meat market, to whom of course they feel no attraction themselves.

Life can indeed be cruel, especially to women who've listened to the feminist propaganda and squandered their youth, and small window of prime sexual attractiveness.

But they've got their career, and they're money, so I guess that's something.

Ding!

The relentless conveyor belt of age drops them off, one-by-one broken and disillusioned at my doorstep every day. They are so many that they accumulate in piles with only the brightest one’s grabbing my attention.

I sh!tteth you not and this is not some tongue-in-cheek joke. It is just a fact and if I had more time or, perhaps cared enough, I’d share more, but I do not and I shall not.

 

[Da Realist]

They lived their life trying not to "live under any man", so why start whining now? If I meet a woman at that age and I want to marry her, I at least want her to be able to give birth to a healthy child. A woman approaching her 40's can't guarantee that.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear Amok,
Yes for some of our less successful brothers marriage to a rich Woman can be a viable opportunity......Me?Nah....been there done that,determined not to take orders from anyone Male or Female after a less than distinguished Military career...A friend of Mine took this option some years ago and got tied up to a disgustingly rich Woman,he had just recovered from a divorce that stripped him of his Wife,Home and Kids,the devastating effects of the situation on his business left him a virtual pauper...So yeah,Harry became as one mutual friend described him,just another of her Social accoutrements,like the South American Crocodile Skin Handbag she would flaunt........At her little Soirees,Harry was her little Butler,"get this,get that,oh a drink for Analise"I remember one such occasion "Oh Harry get the Champagne Bottle top remover Quickly"Then when it arrived "Oh Harry you dumb arsed little Man,not that shabby thing,the Silver one with the Eagles Head".....But the last laugh was on her,Harry flew the Coop with one of her horny mates and in the eventual settlement skinned her for half a million

 

[sodbuster]

the only reason I'd marry rich? she wouldn't be interested in my money. Ohterwise-give me the young hottie who doesn't want kids. Been there,done that-not in a rush to do it again.

 

[bigjohnson]

DO women like this REALLY scare you?

Nope, by the time she's spent that amount of her life becoming "accomplished" she's outlived her shelf life. She has nothing I want after 30, certainly not at *50*.

They lived their life trying not to "live under any man", so why start whining now? If I meet a woman at that age and I want to marry her, I at least want her to be able to give birth to a healthy child. A woman approaching her 40's can't guarantee that.

What he said.

When will you women learn that "successful" women do not scare us. We just don't care about their success. Fat chicks don't scare us either, and they are invisible to us too.

And what he said.

 

[Duffdog]

Women can delude themselves into thinking they are becoming "the prize" as the increase their career success, but in eyes of men, they are becoming less and less desirable, and more and more of a "last ditch option" for guys that otherwise wouldn't have a chance.

Fantastic! Its common knowledge that everyone wants a 25 yr old college girl with a smoking body above all else. Though I begin to wonder if these unattractive females who are "successful" are simply guaranteeing that they are bred out of the gene pool.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Come on guys! DO women like this REALLY scare you? (Providing, of course, she doesn't have a "ball-buster" attitude.)

Sorry, but this is the biggest lie ever to be floated out by the 'Today's Woman' crowd. Men could care less what a woman earns or what she does to earn it - it's simply not a factor in attraction for us - we don't take a woman's status or wealth into consideration, all she has to be is hot. That is a guy's one condition for intimacy, physical attraction. She's gotta be hot - whether she makes six figures or is in the pit of poverty is irrelevant in attraction. Oprah and Star Jones' husbands still have to get aroused, and all the money in the world wont be any better an aphrodesiac.

Status, wealth and the other rewards that result from 'professional' life are conditions women have for men in attraction. That's not to discount men being physically attractive or other conditions, but women have far more conditions for their intimacy than men, and these conditions are predicated on characteristics that prove a man as a good provider for her and any future offspring's security. These male characteristics (or sometimes just the prospects of a man attaining them) are defined by women as having value and are therefore attractive. Attractive enough to make a man with these qualities one to be competed over with other women.

Women in the professional realm would like the conditions for attraction to be predicated upon their professional status (wealth), individual merit and/or aspects their personal integrity, and a whole list of esoteric qualities, but they still fight against men's basic impulses - she's-go-to-be-hot! If a woman is attractive a man is more than happy to have her foot the bill regardless of comparative incomes, it's just icing on the cake for us, but this is analogous to a woman who marries a rich guy who also happens to be good looking. Professional women would love to change that rule to fit their capacity to fulfill it; they know on some instinctive level that time is their enemy so attempting to alter the game of attraction to suit their ability is a natural deduction.

The 'Today's Woman' crowd love to use this pseudo-fear that men are expected to have in response as to why guy's ought to be ashamed of themselves for basing their attraction of the physical by blaming it on 'men's fragile egoes' or how they 'feel threatened by professional women'. It comes down to an expectation and entitlement from their 'professionalism' that men should redefine their own attraction based on what women find attractive in the masculine.

The ideology then grinds it's teeth at the men 'qualified' to date professional women for having a tendency to hit on women far younger, less 'powerful' and (surprise) generally in much better physical shape than the 'professional' they should be dating. For this they're called 'infantile', 'immature', or the behavior is regarded as a character flaw, or a desire to relive his youth with a 'trophy wife' - interesting that this term should come from the same faction to complain about the evils of objectifying women. All the man is doing is following his primary impulse, she has to be hot!

As most women bemoan, men have a tendency to see women as sex objects in attraction. Women have a tendency to see men as success objects. The problem with this 'professional woman' mythology is that professional women want to be success objects, but nature keeps confounding their efforts.

Now, all of that said, if a woman's choice is to enter the public realm and pursue a career in the same fashion that men have for years, more power to her. Great, you go girl, so long as they understand the responsibilities and liabilities of doing so. They should also thoughroughly understand that men will define what is attractive for them, not women, professional or otherwise.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I posted about a recent similar story in the news in Anything Else and it mysteriously disappeared.

More men Get Economic Boost from Marriage:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_bi_ge/us_marriage_economics[

So the news has been reporting that married men are better off economically than single men. How do they reason this? Because women's income has risen 60% between 1970-2007 and men's only grew 6%. LOL because women's income has increased at a faster rate than men's, that makes married men better off.

Of course in reality the woman keeps all her money and then some, and marries up usually. But if it was the other way around and there was a 54% decrease between the rate of women's income growth compared to men's, do you think they'd spin that as women are better off being married lol?

Anyway it's no surprise women are making more money and getting more college degrees. Society is taking away from men and giving it to women.

 

[Trader]

So my question to all of you is:

Why is it that girls are free to define what is attractive in a man (looks, money, status, dominance)

But guys are NOT free to define what is attractive in girls (basically physical attractiveness and submissiveness, quietness, etc)

Who is responsible for this? The feminists? The AFC chumps?

I've actually had this discussion in my social circle, I've told the girls: 'You are free to go after rich guys, after all it's nature at work, just don't go for his money ONLY. But it's ok for you to screen guys on $$$.'

And then I add: 'Same thing with us guys. We are free to go after young hot girls, let nature take its course.'

I think everyone would win if we were just honest with ourselves.

 

[azanon]

Saying that wealth isn't an element of attraction for men with women is true, but it doesn't tell the whole story where a potential marriage is concerned.

Read slowly and carefully: Any man who only considered how "attracted" he is to a woman when deciding whether to marry her or not IS a fool. Only a fool would marry a "10", whose 100,000+ in debt, and prone to spend his money away. Likewise, only a fool would not considered the fact that a women pulls in 6 figures or has a crazy wealthy family as a significant positive trait when deciding whether or not marrying her is a good idea. AFAIK, anyone who says money can't buy happiness never had any.

Hey, for all of you people that think money has no bearing whatsoever on your happiness, would you kindly send me all of your excess money? I can provide an account number for you to make this a painless transaction.

It bears repeating: Only a fool considers only how attracted he is to a woman in a "marry or not" decision.

If there EVER WAS a business decision that bears considering business factors, it'd be marriage. Making a good or bad marriage choice will probably have more bearing on your overall financial life than any other decision you'll ever make. Any questions?

I haven't had 50+, but I've had enough to know for certain that it all feels approximately the same inside. I'd give anything to bone Megan Fox (the most attractive woman I know), but I wouldn't even consider marrying her. So much for the attraction > all theory!

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Point taken with regards to the long term, but you're giving two very extreme examples that very few guys will ever have the opportunity to experience. Physical attraction is a much more visceral consideration with regard to committing to an LTR; at least more so then women. Most men find themselves in a mediocre middle ground, and with that in mind, even a slightly younger, hotter and more sexually available woman will have a long term advantage above a slightly older, slightly chubby, less sexually available woman with more appreciable wealth as a result of her professionalism. Professionalism and wealth independent of a hot body and genuine lust isn't an aphrodesiac for men.

However, that's not what's at issue. What is at issue is a preponderance of women convinced of themselves that it SHOULD be their status, wealth, education, etc. that ought to have a higher (or exclusive) bearing on a man's desire while marginalizing or disqualifying the physical aspect that men are genuinely interested in. External rewards like wealth, status & education, come at a price and this is usually the physical (or because of a lack of it).

 

[Stagger Lee]

However, that's not what's at issue. What is at issue is a preponderance of women convinced of themselves that it SHOULD be their status, wealth, education, etc. that ought to have a higher (or exclusive) bearing on a man's desire while marginalizing or disqualifying the physical aspect that men are genuinely interested in. External rewards like wealth, status & education, come at a price and this is usually the physical (or because of a lack of it).

Yeah and on top of that delusion these women have, they expect the man to make as much or more money as they do. At least when men use money to attract women they don't expect the women to have as high or higher income as they do. It's become easier for women to make money than it is for them to stay in shape.

 

[bigjohnson]

Short version: It's a case of forgetting the simple rule that men look at women in a fundamentally different way than women look at men. Both men and women are often guilty of forgetting this.

 

[Duffdog]

So my question to all of you is:

Why is it that girls are free to define what is attractive in a man (looks, money, status, dominance)

But guys are NOT free to define what is attractive in girls (basically physical attractiveness and submissiveness, quietness, etc)

Who is responsible for this? The feminists? The AFC chumps?

I've actually had this discussion in my social circle, I've told the girls: 'You are free to go after rich guys, after all it's nature at work, just don't go for his money ONLY. But it's ok for you to screen guys on $$$.'

And then I add: 'Same thing with us guys. We are free to go after young hot girls, let nature take its course.'

I think everyone would win if we were just honest with ourselves.

Hot young thin girls are sought after. And those are the only ones sought after...this means that if you are a female and you just happened to win the genetic lottery, you are a prize whether you like it or not. Conversely, the unattractive women are not sought after, and there are vastly more of them. Its simply a game of numbers. All males want the top 10% of females and those particular females who happen to make up that 10% only want the top 2% of males. So, naturally, the females that are desired by all the males get to decide what "they want in a man" because it is their right. After all, they can take less attractive woman's guy away, but the less attractive woman can't take her guy away. Thus it is a case of unequal power.

Same story with males who are naturally taller, more athletic, blah blah... and here's the big shocker you were looking for as to why:

Because they can. That is always the answer to any sociological question and it never seems to change.