<p>Talk to my evolutionary biologist professor. He would tell you that females perking up is just an instinctual way of females showing interest in a male by bringing attention to her "secondary sex characteristics by sticking her chest up and out. </p>
<p>It is no different than other animals, and similarly men and women cannot help such instinctual reactions. The prof was scary. He could pick out guys and girls who liked each other on the first and second day of classes, even if they were not siting together. He did that to demonstrate that genetically built-in mechanisms cannot be shut off or masked.</p>
<p>Interesting you view this as a lecture. I thought it was a discussion about SD-SB relationships. However, if you want an exam, I can prepare one for you. </p>
<p>Oh please. Feel free to talk about the biological component. Sure, we know men are looking at women’s curves just to see whose hips will be better for delivering a child. ;)) </p>
<p>And the comment about the former date who “learned not to be skeptical”. Thats an example of the subtle condescention in the tone of these posts. Maybe there was something in the way you said it that sounded disengenuous. Or maybe it was perfectly reasonable, if not appropriate to be cautious or skeptical in college. And as for the airstrip reunion, maybe SHE is the pilot. Or maybe SHE had family money or became financially successful in her career and maybe she, or both she and her spouse, fly. Why assume that the spouse was the pilot or bought/leased the plane. That is the example of the subtle sexist tone in many of these posts. Oh, and maybe she just wasn’t that into you. </p>
<p>Yes, the tone comes across as lecturing in many of the posts. The comments that people don’t or can’t understand, and the attempt to educate them has a supercilious air about it. </p>
<p>Rather than prepare an exam, how about preparing a paper on the immorality of infidelity.</p>
<p>It’s hard to know without the broader context. My son goes to college with the son of a major Hollywood actor (household name). If that kid came up to a girl and said I have access to a private plane, that could be totally reasonable. This family ain’t flying commercial, if only for security reasons. If my S, who is your average upper middle class suburban white male, said to a girl that he had access to a private plane, she’d do well to be skeptical. </p>
<p>I’m not jaded at all, btw. But I wasn’t born yesterday. </p>
Maybe she thought, “Oh, another dreary boy who thinks having an airplane will get me weak in the knees …”</p>
<p>I’ve changed views on this thread: first interested, then thinking it was dreck, and now it’s a bit tedious and predictable but very revealing (not on SD/SB relationships, but the posters). </p>
<p>Agreed. It has become tedious.And very eye opening as to who has a sexist,degrading view of women,though they will deny it. We just can’t possibly understand … [-X </p>
<p>We actually did look at buying a small single engine airplane. It’s not as expensive as you might think. On par w buying a small sailboat or RV.</p>
<p>I have known more than a few successful attorneys over the years who have owned or shared private planes. I actually think it made a lot of sense for some of them, although I don’t know if their kids had access beyond family trips. I have also known more than a few who had kept women. Although only two who were married at the time. Plus my friend’s ex, who was also a very successful attorney.</p>
<p>Dont know who you are referring to, GMT. If me, am probably remembering the company incorrectly, as it was a fractional ownership in a jet. Not a putt-putt prop plane.</p>
<p>As it happens, my father was an avid pilot who enabled me to solo before I was licensed to drive. I simply can’t put myself into the mindset that would spring a test on a woman I was dating: let’s see how she reacts to the old “I have access to an airplane” routine. I think I smell revisionist history.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why you think you know so much about this culture if you only meet one of these young women every 6 months or so. How are you able to draw conclusions about the larger group based on such a small sample? Even if only 5 or 6 of the ~15 women you’ve met in the last 8 years were with married men, it wouldn’t mean that only 30% of the total relationships in this culture are with married men. If 4 or 5 teens in my 15 member Scout troop come from single parent homes, I can’t assume that 30% of all Scouts come from single family homes, can I? Or that I know all the intimate details of what goes on in those relationships either…</p>
<p>Responding to Post 430-- awcntdb, my crack about the guy being in love with the girl before buying the BMW was meant to be at joke at my own expense, because that would be a ridiculous standard but, despite being ridiculous, is nonetheless sort of close to my own views. So I basically agree with your response on that point. </p>
<p>Anyway, interesting discussion. I haven’t had time to read everything in detail but I’m looking forward to it. </p>
What makes you think 55 year old women who are not already married would want 55 year old men. Heck in real life there are a lot younger than 55 year old men who are single too.</p>
<p>There are also worlds, including the one that 90% of women live in, in which a woman who is blindly trusting of a man may end up seriously regretting it. Can you fathom that women have reasons to be afraid or cautious of which you know nothing? Your assumption that those women were not worth knowing because they were skeptical of your story was no more open-minded than their assumptions about you. But it doesn’t matter, as I’m sure both you and they managed to live perfectly happy lives in spite of never knowing what might have been. So you shrugging and thinking “their loss” – at the distance of how many years? – smacks of a bit of pettiness.</p>
<p>I agree with @jym626 that the tone of condescension you display, especially in posts like this, is extremely unattractive. However, I understand your defensiveness – you’ve been a bit of a punching bag in this thread, and it’s not a big surprise that you’re reacting this way. I imagine you’re also trying to prove your cred as legitimately being part of this high-spending world.</p>
<p>However, all this about airplanes has nothing to do with my own statement that you could be making it all up. But I wasn’t accusing you of being a ■■■■■. It’s just that we’re at 31 pages right now and this thread has been kept going pretty much solely on the basis of your stories. We all already knew that there were such things as call girls and escort services, and we also all already knew that the world is full of women who only date wealthy men and who expect them to buy them expensive presents and underwrite a luxurious lifestyle for them. You have insisted that you know of a world, one with fixed rules and standards of behavior, which is not quite the one thing nor quite the other. It could very well be true, and in any case even hypothetical discussions can be fun and enlightening, but nobody should ever assume that anonymous unsubstantiated sources are completely reliable. And yes, that goes for everything everyone says on CC (except usually people are only talking about their own lives so it doesn’t matter anyway).</p>
<p>My husband ex boss teaches flying lesson in Silicon Valley. He was not rich but he has access to planes that he could fly before he became a fly instructor. It’s not like owning a private jet.</p>
</p>