A confident woman can have any man she wants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:guy here, i don't find women's confidence sexy. quiet women are sexy

Agree. The throw yourself at a guy woman is not for most men. Those are the kind of women men use.

Ah, you’re pretending proactive = desperate. No. It feels good to be wanted by a woman, and bird in the hand. Don’t argue against taking your fate into your own hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The number of diplomas a woman has on the wall doesn’t affect the quality of the relationship. It affects the quality of her job. Men don’t marry women for her job. That’s what you do at work, without the guy around.

First, men absolutely do marry women for their earning potential these days.

Second, the number of diplomas a woman has obviously doesn't affect the quality of her relationships; pedicurists divorce as often as lawyers. However, a woman's job defines so many other things - her income, her professional class, the type of people she works with, the type of men she meets, her social habits, even her hobbies. It's silly to say all of this doesn't figure into the man she meets and marries.

A good, happy marriage is about character about the people. It has more to do with the ability to compromise, to smile at each other, and to enjoy sex with each other, than it does with the amount on the woman’s paycheck. And that’s experience, not theory.

There are lots of candidates with good character, it's best to marry someone with a good character from a compatible social class. It's just as easy to find a woman of a good character with a good paycheck. It's not like virtue is a monopoly of the poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:guy here, i don't find women's confidence sexy. quiet women are sexy

Agree. The throw yourself at a guy woman is not for most men. Those are the kind of women men use.

Ah, you’re pretending proactive = desperate. No. It feels good to be wanted by a woman, and bird in the hand. Don’t argue against taking your fate into your own hands.

You can't take fate into your own hands unless fate is willing. An unattractive woman can get proactive with you all day, and it would get her exactly nowhere. It feels much better to be wanted by someone who you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The number of diplomas a woman has on the wall doesn’t affect the quality of the relationship. It affects the quality of her job. Men don’t marry women for her job. That’s what you do at work, without the guy around.

First, men absolutely do marry women for their earning potential these days.

Second, the number of diplomas a woman has obviously doesn't affect the quality of her relationships; pedicurists divorce as often as lawyers. However, a woman's job defines so many other things - her income, her professional class, the type of people she works with, the type of men she meets, her social habits, even her hobbies. It's silly to say all of this doesn't figure into the man she meets and marries.

A good, happy marriage is about character about the people. It has more to do with the ability to compromise, to smile at each other, and to enjoy sex with each other, than it does with the amount on the woman’s paycheck. And that’s experience, not theory.

There are lots of candidates with good character, it's best to marry someone with a good character from a compatible social class. It's just as easy to find a woman of a good character with a good paycheck. It's not like virtue is a monopoly of the poor.

The theories of the women of DCUM. That’s not what we men do. It’s best to view the world as it is. Men actually do this, that, and the third thing, not what you think is best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only thing holding a woman back from the man of her dreams is her lack of confidence.

A stunning beauty who is a wallflower and shy will not do nearly as well on the dating market as an average looking woman who is bursting with confidence and has a presence.

Men don't know anything. Tell them you are beautiful and desirable and they will believe you!

If she's so "confident" she doesn't need a man. Your sad post suggest that's the big prize in a woman's life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The number of diplomas a woman has on the wall doesn’t affect the quality of the relationship. It affects the quality of her job. Men don’t marry women for her job. That’s what you do at work, without the guy around.

First, men absolutely do marry women for their earning potential these days.

Second, the number of diplomas a woman has obviously doesn't affect the quality of her relationships; pedicurists divorce as often as lawyers. However, a woman's job defines so many other things - her income, her professional class, the type of people she works with, the type of men she meets, her social habits, even her hobbies. It's silly to say all of this doesn't figure into the man she meets and marries.

A good, happy marriage is about character about the people. It has more to do with the ability to compromise, to smile at each other, and to enjoy sex with each other, than it does with the amount on the woman’s paycheck. And that’s experience, not theory.

There are lots of candidates with good character, it's best to marry someone with a good character from a compatible social class. It's just as easy to find a woman of a good character with a good paycheck. It's not like virtue is a monopoly of the poor.

The theories of the women of DCUM. That’s not what we men do. It’s best to view the world as it is. Men actually do this, that, and the third thing, not what you think is best.

LOL, sure. You're the only man in the world whose opinion counts. As if.

I'm married. My DH was very clear why he married me, and a blue collar woman would have never been considered, no matter how fun she would have been. He's a man too; his opinion matters just as much as yours.

I wouldn't marry a blue collar person either. I don't know why you argue against assortative mating as if it is not clearly demonstrated all around us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only thing holding a woman back from the man of her dreams is her lack of confidence.

A stunning beauty who is a wallflower and shy will not do nearly as well on the dating market as an average looking woman who is bursting with confidence and has a presence.

Men don't know anything. Tell them you are beautiful and desirable and they will believe you!

In my long experience and observation, all things equal men far prefer shy and gentle girls over bold or talkative girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing holding a woman back from the man of her dreams is her lack of confidence.

A stunning beauty who is a wallflower and shy will not do nearly as well on the dating market as an average looking woman who is bursting with confidence and has a presence.

Men don't know anything. Tell them you are beautiful and desirable and they will believe you!

In my long experience and observation, all things equal men far prefer shy and gentle girls over bold or talkative girls.

As a guy you are probably right but I prefer a smart, independent woman overall. Attractive but not gorgeous is a must.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The number of diplomas a woman has on the wall doesn’t affect the quality of the relationship. It affects the quality of her job. Men don’t marry women for her job. That’s what you do at work, without the guy around.

First, men absolutely do marry women for their earning potential these days.

Second, the number of diplomas a woman has obviously doesn't affect the quality of her relationships; pedicurists divorce as often as lawyers. However, a woman's job defines so many other things - her income, her professional class, the type of people she works with, the type of men she meets, her social habits, even her hobbies. It's silly to say all of this doesn't figure into the man she meets and marries.

A good, happy marriage is about character about the people. It has more to do with the ability to compromise, to smile at each other, and to enjoy sex with each other, than it does with the amount on the woman’s paycheck. And that’s experience, not theory.

There are lots of candidates with good character, it's best to marry someone with a good character from a compatible social class. It's just as easy to find a woman of a good character with a good paycheck. It's not like virtue is a monopoly of the poor.

The theories of the women of DCUM. That’s not what we men do. It’s best to view the world as it is. Men actually do this, that, and the third thing, not what you think is best.

LOL, sure. You're the only man in the world whose opinion counts. As if.

I'm married. My DH was very clear why he married me, and a blue collar woman would have never been considered, no matter how fun she would have been. He's a man too; his opinion matters just as much as yours.

I wouldn't marry a blue collar person either. I don't know why you argue against assortative mating as if it is not clearly demonstrated all around us.

Why? Curious about thought process. Not all blue collar people are the same just not like every Harvard grad is identical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The number of diplomas a woman has on the wall doesn’t affect the quality of the relationship. It affects the quality of her job. Men don’t marry women for her job. That’s what you do at work, without the guy around.

First, men absolutely do marry women for their earning potential these days.

Second, the number of diplomas a woman has obviously doesn't affect the quality of her relationships; pedicurists divorce as often as lawyers. However, a woman's job defines so many other things - her income, her professional class, the type of people she works with, the type of men she meets, her social habits, even her hobbies. It's silly to say all of this doesn't figure into the man she meets and marries.

A good, happy marriage is about character about the people. It has more to do with the ability to compromise, to smile at each other, and to enjoy sex with each other, than it does with the amount on the woman’s paycheck. And that’s experience, not theory.

There are lots of candidates with good character, it's best to marry someone with a good character from a compatible social class. It's just as easy to find a woman of a good character with a good paycheck. It's not like virtue is a monopoly of the poor.

The theories of the women of DCUM. That’s not what we men do. It’s best to view the world as it is. Men actually do this, that, and the third thing, not what you think is best.

LOL, sure. You're the only man in the world whose opinion counts. As if.

I'm married. My DH was very clear why he married me, and a blue collar woman would have never been considered, no matter how fun she would have been. He's a man too; his opinion matters just as much as yours.

I wouldn't marry a blue collar person either. I don't know why you argue against assortative mating as if it is not clearly demonstrated all around us.

Why? Curious about thought process. Not all blue collar people are the same just not like every Harvard grad is identical.

I think marriage is hard enough without introducing class differences. Of course there are blue-collar people out there who have massive libraries and opera subscriptions but they are exceptions, and I'm counting on the rule. The more similar the couple, the better.

[Anonymous]

I don't know why you argue against assortative mating as if it is not clearly demonstrated all around us.

What’s clearly demonstrated on this forum and elsewhere is a number of eternally single women who think they should be valued for reasons other than men value women for. Furthermore, the blue collar crack suggests you walk around with the same contempt for women less accomplished than yourself that we saw last week in here. The “ew, nurses only marry deadbeats” thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The number of diplomas a woman has on the wall doesn’t affect the quality of the relationship. It affects the quality of her job. Men don’t marry women for her job. That’s what you do at work, without the guy around.

First, men absolutely do marry women for their earning potential these days.

Second, the number of diplomas a woman has obviously doesn't affect the quality of her relationships; pedicurists divorce as often as lawyers. However, a woman's job defines so many other things - her income, her professional class, the type of people she works with, the type of men she meets, her social habits, even her hobbies. It's silly to say all of this doesn't figure into the man she meets and marries.

A good, happy marriage is about character about the people. It has more to do with the ability to compromise, to smile at each other, and to enjoy sex with each other, than it does with the amount on the woman’s paycheck. And that’s experience, not theory.

There are lots of candidates with good character, it's best to marry someone with a good character from a compatible social class. It's just as easy to find a woman of a good character with a good paycheck. It's not like virtue is a monopoly of the poor.

+1

Dare I say it, classy women do not chase men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know why you argue against assortative mating as if it is not clearly demonstrated all around us.

What’s clearly demonstrated on this forum and elsewhere is a number of eternally single women who think they should be valued for reasons other than men value women for. Furthermore, the blue collar crack suggests you walk around with the same contempt for women less accomplished than yourself that we saw last week in here. The “ew, nurses only marry deadbeats” thread.

I'm married. I chose my husband, and he chose me in line with the rules of assortative mating. But please do continue to deny reality that contradicts your theories.

I don't have contempt for blue-collar women. I just didn't want to marry one of their men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The number of diplomas a woman has on the wall doesn’t affect the quality of the relationship. It affects the quality of her job. Men don’t marry women for her job. That’s what you do at work, without the guy around.

First, men absolutely do marry women for their earning potential these days.

Second, the number of diplomas a woman has obviously doesn't affect the quality of her relationships; pedicurists divorce as often as lawyers. However, a woman's job defines so many other things - her income, her professional class, the type of people she works with, the type of men she meets, her social habits, even her hobbies. It's silly to say all of this doesn't figure into the man she meets and marries.

A good, happy marriage is about character about the people. It has more to do with the ability to compromise, to smile at each other, and to enjoy sex with each other, than it does with the amount on the woman’s paycheck. And that’s experience, not theory.

There are lots of candidates with good character, it's best to marry someone with a good character from a compatible social class. It's just as easy to find a woman of a good character with a good paycheck. It's not like virtue is a monopoly of the poor.

The theories of the women of DCUM. That’s not what we men do. It’s best to view the world as it is. Men actually do this, that, and the third thing, not what you think is best.

LOL, sure. You're the only man in the world whose opinion counts. As if.

I'm married. My DH was very clear why he married me, and a blue collar woman would have never been considered, no matter how fun she would have been. He's a man too; his opinion matters just as much as yours.

I wouldn't marry a blue collar person either. I don't know why you argue against assortative mating as if it is not clearly demonstrated all around us.

Why? Curious about thought process. Not all blue collar people are the same just not like every Harvard grad is identical.

I think marriage is hard enough without introducing class differences. Of course there are blue-collar people out there who have massive libraries and opera subscriptions but they are exceptions, and I'm counting on the rule. The more similar the couple, the better.

Now do racial differences...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know why you argue against assortative mating as if it is not clearly demonstrated all around us.

What’s clearly demonstrated on this forum and elsewhere is a number of eternally single women who think they should be valued for reasons other than men value women for. Furthermore, the blue collar crack suggests you walk around with the same contempt for women less accomplished than yourself that we saw last week in here. The “ew, nurses only marry deadbeats” thread.

I'm married. I chose my husband, and he chose me in line with the rules of assortative mating. But please do continue to deny reality that contradicts your theories.

I don't have contempt for blue-collar women. I just didn't want to marry one of their men.

You sound like a really disgusting person.