Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watcgl!kim From: kim@watnow.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) Newsgroups: ont.singles Subject: Re: finding girls/boys, women/men, whatever.. Message-ID: Date: 26 Feb 90 02:36:20 GMT References: <755@alias.UUCP> <21127@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Sender: daemon@watcgl.waterloo.edu Distribution: ont Organization: PAMI Group, U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 80 In-reply-to: ehoogerbeets@rose.waterloo.edu's message of 20 Feb 90 21:54:04 GMT In article <21127@watdragon.waterloo.edu> ehoogerbeets@rose.waterloo.edu (Edwin Hoogerbeets) writes: Just as a side note for the women reading here, this is what men are looking for when evaluating a potential partner: 1) looks - sorry, but it's statistically true 2) personality - caring, nice, friendly, someone who'll take care of them 3) status - someone from a good background/education who'll complement their carreer aspirations (the successful man must be married to someone good, at least in the eyes of his colleagues!) Hallelujah. This is about the most complete and concise expression of how I feel about women too (for the curious out there, I *am* a guy). Except that often #1 and #2 aren't always in that order (they are often reversed for me). For me, I would rephrase #3 (a woman's status) as whether or not that person is "equal" to me in some manner -- she should either have a similar background/education OR she should have such a background or set of experiences that I find somehow equivalent to mine, because although they are perhaps very DIFFERENT from my experiences I find them very interesting. I don't think "career aspirations" or colleagues' approval come anywhere near to being criteria for me. jhmathon@watyew.waterloo.edu (joanne mathon) writes: Summary: Comment on types of women >For females, there are other concerns when looking for a mate. Females >tend to have the following list as their primary concerns when >evaluating a prospective mate (in order): > > 1) status - does this person have power? success? a good job? money? > respect of his colleagues? > 2) looks - nice face, good bod > 3) personality - pleasant, socially graced, caring, sensitive I believe that the gist of what this article spoke about is true. BUT, I must take what Edwin quoted with a grain of salt, many of my friends, including me, do not look for status in a man. [...] This article is very good! I would like some feedback also on my beliefs on types of girls. I recently had a conversation with a man, who beleived that there were only three types of women: ugly, pretty and nice, and boy-toys. He believed that the ideal female mate is the pretty and nice, whereas the uglies are rejected and the boy-toys are there only for the fun. I understand that this may be true, but I hope that men and women aren't necessarily ruled by what society proscribes. The idea of prettiness is exactly that, society tells us whether someone is pretty or not and regardless of their personality, they are forever labelled. So what do you think about what I have said?????? Joanne (jhmathon@watyew.waterloo.edu) This man who believes there are only three types of women must be brain damaged. Strange that he would categorize based only upon external appearance. "Nice" is such a non-meaningful word, too. I don't think that any one classification scheme can cover all the kinds of women... My belief is that there are a large number of women who are compatible with me (to varying degrees), but that circumstances prevent our "getting together" -- perhaps we just haven't met, or if we've met either one of us is already engaged with someone else, or one of us was in a bad mood... So although people are compatible with MANY potential partners, chances are smaller that they will meet one of the compatibles under the right set of circumstances. Thus, to really meet that One Special Person, you just have to go out and make sure you meet lots of people and give them all a chance to get to know you. The neat thing about my philosophy [self-plug!] is that you get this nifty prescription on how to USE it, whereas the above-mentioned 3-type scheme is of little use. I'd also be interested in hearing how Joanne would classify herself in that "uglies/pretty and nice/boy-toy" scheme... and I'm sure Edwin and I would ESPECIALLY like to know... ;-) -- T. Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.{edu|cdn} kim@watsup.uwaterloo.ca {uunet|utzoo|utai|decvax}watmath!watsup!kim Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada