Sir David's intent was probably completely without malice. I took it to be intended as a joke, in fact. But Sir David's choice of what is funny still reveals an underlying attitude to young women. His joke's message implied that this young woman (a) was shallow enough to be impressed by a car (yes, I know there are women like that, but I don't think they're in the majority—at least they don't seem to be in Dallas or the Texas hill country, where I spend most of my time); (b) was responsible for the choices of wealthy car buyers.

People make jokes about race and disability as well. Because they're joking, does that mean the person choosing to tell the racist/sexist/whatever joke is not racist/sexist/whatever themselves? No, it means that on some level, they think racism/sexism/whatever is funny. Playing off stereotypes gets an easy laugh for many a comedian, but that doesn't make it a good one.

People "laugh because it's funny and we laugh because it's true"—to us. When we don't laugh, it's frequently because we don't share the frame of reference that finds the joke funny.

You protested that I was accusing you of saying ALL women chase men with expensive cars, etc.

That is a moot point because obviously you are using social darwinist arguments to say "most" women feel that way, and the ones who don't are statistically insignificant and ugly anyway.

So why protest?

Sir David's comments say a lot about his own male midlife crisis. He rather clearly feels insecure about his age, and believes that driving a hot car, such as a Ferrari, would gain him the admiration of young women, reassuring him of his sexual attractiveness. But he can't buy one, because it violates his stated environmental principles. What to do in such a situation? Blame the young women he wants to attract for his own desire for the Ferrari.

Respectfully, you're honestly engaged in a lot of self deception.

I do not like the way things are either.

You ask why I bother. Because I wish things were better on this planet.

I wish the men breeding the most kids were the smart, kind, frugal ones. The reality just ain't so. By any stretch of the imagination. The biggest asset collector males, regardless of any other quality, beget the highest quality broods. The best looking men, regardless of personality qualities, generate the largest broods. Nowhere is smart, kind, or frugal represented there.

It takes two is all I can say, and unless she is being raped, she chooses who she is sleeping with. 100% of the time.

That was the deal, we men quit smashing you women over the head with clubs and dragging you back to the cave, and you women exert some effort in choosing decent men. You get to define 'decent'.

Obviously, only some of us seem to be following the plan (vast majority of men) and some of us are irresponsible shysters (good plurality of women).

Again, I WISH it were different.

Telling me I am wrong, and PROVING it are two different things, in case you are curious.

I don't particularly think it's funny either: ironic, perhaps, if you scroll down to the article on Salon, in which how much people (male and female) would sell themselves for to a prospective sugar-spouse, and more than a bit awful.

A Ferrari in NYC -- fine, if you're Seinfeld and can shell out millions for an Upper West Side garage. But for the overpowering majority here, it's an attractive nuisance, a nightmare to maintain, not going to get its exercise, and a monster to insure.

They're pretty. A lot of things are.

I'm not the same Anon you've been talking to, but I noticed a flaw in your logic. You say

The biggest asset collector males, regardless of any other quality, beget the highest quality broods... Nowhere is smart, kind, or frugal represented there.

If you're better at collecting assets and promoting your chances for viable offspring than others, aren't you by definition smarter than the next person, at least in this regard? Aren't you also better at keeping rather than spending - the heart of frugality?

An "asset collector" may spend on a Ferrari to promote his/her position in the world, but is not a spendthrift because of that. It's part of the trappings of wealth, and how wealthy people speak to each other (and the rest of us) about their individual value. The savvy ones use this as leverage in accomplishing their goals.

You're right about "kind" not being part of the equation. Nobody got rich by being spendthrift or generous. They do it by greed, and lack of care - but that doesn't make them stupid.

I've been following along at home, and I've learned so much!

Apparently, valuing environmental responsibility over consumerism is a positive value.

However, only unattractive women value environmental responsibility over consumerism.

However, the onus is on us to convert all women, everywhere, to our way of thinking, especially the hot ones.

Even though we are laughable, ugly, statistically insignificant "granola munchers" who no right-minded person could possibly take seriously.

I'm beginning to suspect that BS is so sure about the trees on Mars because that is where he lives.

BS -- Rich men have fewer children than poor men in every part of the world, except where polygamy is the norm. So much for your 'women choose rich men and propagate that desire' theory.

The problem for you is that you reap what you sow. Sorry you're a shallow scum-bot who only finds shallow scum-bots attractive and then gets dumped by said scum-bots because you can never measure up in scum-bot points.

The rest of us -- you know, the ones with deep meaningful relationships, where both parties make sacrifices and look past wallets, tits, wrinkles, and muscles -- aren't worked up into a spittle flying rage over this fluff piece because we just don't care about shallow men who drive ferraris and the shallow women who love them.

The Nouveau riche aren't just dismissed by Old Money....they're also dismissed by those of us with more meaningful issues to worry about in our lives.