Those results seems highly suspect to me. This quote from the press release raised my eyebrows:

"Project roadway. More than seven in 10 (73 percent) car buyers say if there were a reality TV show like “Project Runway” that was not about fashion design, but instead about designing the best-looking fuel-efficient and emissions-free car, they’d definitely watch."

I can't find the actual study to read, but I'm dubious of its accuracy with statements like that combined with the source of funding.

Hate to break it to you, but guys are attracted to women largely based on physical allure.

As far as women being attracted to men due to possessions, etc., I can't address that directly, though through observation I must say that guys that I see with a lot of money certainly seem to have a lot more luck in the dating pool than those without.

So, to tie that thought with the main thrust of the article:

I don't own a car at all, rather take the ecologically friendly subway. Shouldn't this make me even more attractive than Prius drivers? And if women aren't attracted to men with possessions, per se, shouldn't the fact that I live in a small apartment, don't have an enormous amount of disposable income, and don't have a car at all not have any effect on my attractiveness to the opposite sex?

And no, I'm not being a Brightstar or one of his ilk. I just thought I'd ask a provocative question. Any thoughtful responses?

Sadly for me, very few women are turned on by the fact that I gave away my car three years ago.

D. A sensible, hybrid sedan that gets upward of 40 miles per gallon

A sensible hybrid would get at least 80. The ones that get mileage in the 40s are an insult.

If you're going to date based on fuel efficiency, at least have standards!

men care a whole hell of a lot more about expensive, gas-guzzling cars that accelerate from zero to 60 in half a nanosecond than their potential mates ever could.

Ironically, electric motors accelerate better than gasoline ones. It's only at sustained high speeds that traditional car engines achieve any sort of decent performance.

Heh...I work with a bunch of guys, and our lunchtime conversation now is more about mpg than engine performance.

Seriously, though: for women, whether they have children or not, the biological imperative is more about stability and security than possessions. There's a great Susan Tedeschi song with the lines-- "Your love is all right, but I need a little more, honey--I can't spend your love at the grocery store..." She's not talking about 2-carat diamond rings here. A guy who drives a fuel-efficient vehicle is sensible and rational and thinks ahead, long-term. He won't blow the grocery and mortgage money on a Mustang GT. That's the kind of guy I'd want to pair up with (and I did), and I suspect I'm not alone.

it's just the eco-friendly version of evaluating guys by their ability to provide.

i guarantee those same ladies would prefer a guy driving a tesla to a guy driving a prius.

i feel you. my man doesn't even know how to drive. :)

but i've made the same argument about this before. 40 miles to the gallon is a very short-sighted answer to the problem of peak oil. all this really shows is that the prius is the new "muscle car." it's not really an evolution in anything but marketing.

PERIOD.

As an idealist, I believe there are women who can find attraction independent of wealth. I also believe there are men who can find attraction independent of physical beauty. As a realist, I find it generally true that wealthy men (with fancy cars) tend to have more success attracting beautiful women.

Regarding the survey... First of all, I suspect the finding of an 88% preference is exaggerated, and perhaps inflated by the structure, wording, and interpretation of the survey. Secondly, I suspect, the outcome would have been different before rising gas prices entered the public consciousness.

When gas prices were stable and cheap, an expensive, gas-guzzling car was a sign of wealth. With the recent, steady increase in gas prices, the emphasis shifts to wealth management. It becomes clear that those who bought fuel-efficient cars are better at managing their wealth. This image applies especially well to those who had the extra money to afford a fancy hybrid, as opposed to a cheap, used, small, economy class car (both are fuel efficient, but the new hybrid indicates wealth). Thus, the survey results don't necessarily indicate a shift in women's desires from wealth to environmental responsibility. It's more plausible that they indicate a shift in desire from wealth to wealth management.

Feminists: Please recognize that my generalizations are based on observations of common behavior. At the same time, I respect and appreciate individual exceptions to the behaviors I generally observe.

Let's put aside the issues of human behavior and retrograde sexual politics for a moment. Considering GM is an auto company, the real question is, why the heck is GM touting this study? It only highlights the fact that GM is far behind Toyota and Honda in producing and selling environmentally friendly vehicles. Is there any marketing rationale behind releasing this study?

(To anyone who mentions the Chevrolet Volt, please, it's not due until 2010 and I won't be surprised if it's delayed beyond 2010.)

was and is a Corvette convertible. (Which, actually, gets a very decent 28 mpg, considering it's a uber-powerful sports car.)

For most daily driving I would go with a 5-spd manual Subaru Forester: decent economy (hoping for Subie diesels to come to US!), very practical and it has AWD (great for a Snow Belt dweller like me). But in the summertime & on weekends, I would love to take a ragtop 'Vette out on a nice twisty two-lane road.

**************

If a woman judges me to be an anti-green pig solely because of my above auto preferences, so be it. I would not change for them anyway...well, unless they looked like or actually were Natalie Portman or Anne Hathaway - in which case I'd happily amble along in the overpriced Corolla / green fashion statement they call a Prius.