Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
The letters thread is now closed.
Named after the drink, are you?
Wait a second -- in another thread, you asserted that poor musicians with bad credit were catnip to women. "Decent"*** (i.e., unattractive to women and not rich) men are ignored by desireable women. Now women only want guys with Ferraris. Which is it? Or is it that women will date, procreate with, and marry each type of man?
Hot, beautiful women and...
Poor musician. CHECK.
Guy with hot cars. CHECK, only if they are hot or good liars.
Decent man. Attractive. Says what women want to hear. CHECK.
Decent man. Unattractive, poor. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?
On the last one, there is always one example everyone can point to where a decent guy who is poor and ugly is with a hot, beautiful woman, but we are talking about trends here, not extreme exceptions.
Out of all the coupled people I know, only one owns a Ferrari (he was a CEO of a public company). That doesn't mean that all of the non-Ferrari-owning men couldn't find a mate. Nor does it mean that women at large are holding out for that guy.
Let's get off the Ferrari. We can just as easily be discussing Hummers, Lamborghinis, yachts or jets.
Again, it is not about finding a mate or not, nearly ANYONE can find someone, but we are discussing shallow alpha men with money and power having options to choose beautiful hot women that other men do not have. The signifier, in all cases, is the excessive spending on toys. This is beyond doubt.
Larry David has a bazillion-kajillion dollars and drives a Prius. He doesn't have to drive a Ferrari for anybody to know that he's rich.
Who gives a shit about Larry David? He is one of the 100 most powerful men in Hollywood, short, bald, lib. Of course he has no problem in La La land getting laid by hot women who need him to give them their acting break. Prii are a peculiar Hollywood fixation. What is wrong with a small Honda Civic? A Prius is still a status symbol, but one mutually agreed upon by the liberati in Hwood.
And frankly, for most women, it isn't a dealbreaker. So if men are buying those cars, it's their own responsibility. You're talking about women taking responsibility -- no, we're not going to take responsibility for the choices of a few guys who buy Ferraris.
Again, are we talking about MOST women or about those women who every woman despises because she is sitting on a deck in a $30 million manse in Malibu or a $20 million boat anchored off Capri? All other women take cues from these women on down, which is why Cosmo, and Glamour and all the other mags are always well read, cover to cover, every month and why women obsess over their relative status and beauty vis a vis other women around them. Though it is not politically correct in some circles to discuss this in mixed company, they all want the handsome wealthy 'prince'.
Or are you going to take responsibility for women wearing uncomfortable high heeled shoes, since we may think it makes us more attractive to men? I wouldn't personally say that it would be a man's responsibility.
Women wearing high heel snob shoes is 90% for other women to admire or be jealous over. Only 10% is incidentally directed at attracting men, and even then only to show a warning that she is high maintenance.
EVERYTHING MEN DO is about getting laid by the hottest, most beautiful woman imaginable, or unimaginable. If it impresses his fellow men that he can afford a Ferrari, so much the better. First priority is LAID. Second priority is LAID. MAYBE third is to impress other men, unless the guy is gay, then it IS first priority.
***A tip, a man's failure to attract as many "desireable" women as he might like doesn't automatically make him "decent" or "nice" compared to his more successful brethren.
I never said or implied such a thing. 'Decent' and 'nice' to me means well-raised men, but who are social eunuchs. Who freeze in front of attractive women and who lack the skills to make a hot woman notice and actively want them (unless they are naturally very attractive and approachable). If an effective man who can have any woman in the room because he knows how to play women is 'nice' or 'decent', that is only because he has some morals and/or has found a woman who truly impresses him and who he does not want to lose.
The point about 'nice' and 'decent' is moot since few 'nice' men are skilled enough to be this sort of effective social person, most men fall into the category of 'nice' but quietly desperate and grateful ANY woman has paid them any attention, the way women like men to be because it makes women's jobs easier.
Look up Sir David King. Look up his accomplishments and if you're feeling particularly pathetic compare his accomplishments to your own. Then shut up.
The point he is making for those of you not smart up to pick up on it, is that we have to re-imagine a post-consumerist world. The insight that men are motivated into acts of conspicuous consumptive acts in order to impress women is blatantly obvious (Gee we at Salon don't think that's the case at all). His concise advice on not being impressed by a Ferrari though is pure brilliance. A Ferrari signals nothing but excess disposable income, and the choice to consume a product for the sake of consumption. That’s it. It’s not about the car itself, it’s about the disposable income. It’s about the money. It’s about the consumption.
The fact some of you are already at this state of evolution, congratulation. The rest of society needs to catch up to you. Because no matter how much austerity you choose for yourself, you only count as avant-guard if others are following. If there are sufficient other actors who are impressed by ostentation (and the security, power and ‘good life’ it signals) then all your non-consumerist values are subverted. Seriously get a clue and get over yourself.
Colt
Ps. After having said all this, it may not actually be a smart evolutionary strategy to be unimpressed by the Ferrari, after the effects of the climate change start coming to fruition, it may only be the Ferrari owners who can insulate themselves from the damages or afford to live in more benign areas. Bangladeshi villagers aren’t the ones who will be able migrate easily from their Flooded villages. Of course being comfortably middle class none of you have to worry about any of that.