WHAT WOMEN WANT?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/24/us-women-beauty-idUSTRE52N5O920090324

heh. Imagine that. Women are complex.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/24/us-women-beauty-idUSTRE52N5O920090324

Asking women what they want, will get you bad information.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/24/us-women-beauty-idUSTRE52N5O920090324

Asking women what they want, will get you bad information.

If you were any less predictable, you just wouldn't be sam. 

Women are people. People are individuals. Trying to lump any set of individuals like this will get a complex set of answers.

download Anatomy of Female Power by the Nigerian poet Chinweizu here at http://therawness.com/AFP.pdf.

very few people understand the dynamics of heterosexual relationships. cultures may change, but the principles are still the same.

Without variety, life would be boring.  Differences, male and female make it interesting.

The half of young women willing to marry the ugly millionaire is of course scary (unless you're an ugly millionaire), but then, the question answered to was not of a specific ugly millionaire, but of a generic (hence personality-less) ugly millionaire. In that case the question they were really asked is really this : "Could there exist an ugly millionaire such, that you would marry him?"
Of course, that means that all the ones who answered no are very shallow people... but being young, that is to be expected.

The half of young women willing to marry the ugly millionaire is of course scary (unless you're an ugly millionaire), but then, the question answered to was not of a specific ugly millionaire, but of a generic (hence personality-less) ugly millionaire. In that case the question they were really asked is really this : "Could there exist an ugly millionaire such, that you would marry him?"
Of course, that means that all the ones who answered no are very shallow people... but being young, that is to be expected.

I think your analysis is wrong for several reasons. As I recall, the question was not, "Would you marry an ugly man because he is a millionaire," but "would you be willing to marry an ugly rich man."

Many mothers tell their daughters, "Honey, it's just as easy to love a rich man as a poor one." So the questioned as asked, leaves open the existence or absence of love. If a young woman had two suitors, a rich ugly one and a poor handsome one, and if she had equal affection for both, the obvious choice would be rich/ugly over poor/handsome, n'est-ce pas?

Besides, marrying for good looks is shallow. Marrying for money is at least rational.

Besides, marrying for good looks is shallow. Marrying for money is at least rational.

Sure, if you discount the importance of sex in a marriage.  But all the research I've ever seen has been pretty clear that sexual compatibility is one of the most important factors in maintaining a healthy marriage.

Besides, marrying for good looks is shallow. Marrying for money is at least rational.

Sure, if you discount the importance of sex in a marriage.  But all the research I've ever seen has been pretty clear that sexual compatibility is one of the most important factors in maintaining a healthy marriage.

Do you belong to the look-but-don't-touch school of lovemaking? Coz, otherwise looks have every little to do with sexual compatibility. Not if both parties know what they're doing at least.

Do you seriously not believe that looks play a role in attraction, and that attraction plays a role in sexual compatibility?

The half of young women willing to marry the ugly millionaire is of course scary (unless you're an ugly millionaire), but then, the question answered to was not of a specific ugly millionaire, but of a generic (hence personality-less) ugly millionaire. In that case the question they were really asked is really this : "Could there exist an ugly millionaire such, that you would marry him?"
Of course, that means that all the ones who answered no are very shallow people... but being young, that is to be expected.

1) A millionaire is not much these days.  Billionaire should be the goal.
2) In 1 Kings 1, Abishag marries King David:
   When King David was very old, he could not keep warm even when they put covers over him. So his attendants said to him, “Let us look for a young virgin to serve the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.”  Then they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful young woman and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The woman was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no sexual relations with her.

This was actually a win, win solution.  David didn't live very long after this marriage, and the girl was still young and very beautiful after he died - and fantastically rich by the standards of the day.  She had more royal suitors than she knew what to do with.

So a young woman marrying a *really* old and *really* rich man (or vice versa) makes a lot of sense - provided you like them as a person well enough to live pleasantly with them (despite diminished sexual attraction).

Do you seriously not believe that looks play a role in attraction, and that attraction plays a role in sexual compatibility?

They play a part, but it is very minor compared to pheromonal attraction (or repulsion).

Do you seriously not believe that looks play a role in attraction, and that attraction plays a role in sexual compatibility?

They play a part, but it is very minor compared to pheromonal attraction (or repulsion).

Dunno about pheremones and my sinuses are really messed up this weekend while I've been in mourning.

None of my wives and none of my interim girlfriends would ever pass the entrance exam for a beauty pageant.  Happens that my particular fetish is intelligence.  Each of my three wives was smarter than me which kind of begs the question of their intelligence since they settled for me.

Their fetish doesn't have to be the same as yours... in fact, relationships where both have the same fetish (e.g. good looks) might not last as well as more complementary couplings.

As a side note, before you mentioned that, I had never even considered that some people out there might actually have beauty pageant applicability as a partner criterion... ick, ick-ick-ick!!!