a question for you all.

Not one question. Many.

Love...
I have a better chance understanding Witten's M-theory than understanding the minds of women. But I do love them. Each and every one, though some more than others.

My guess is that most women, especially around the age of twenty, are so wrapped up in the notion of love that they are unable to recognize love when they see it. They intermix love with ambition until they are doomed to fail, simply because they have an idea beforehand about what they are looking for, so they miss out on everything else.

Re: a question for you all.


Your assumption with respect to "all girls" has no basis in fact. Your assumption is just an old fashioned remnant from the paternalistic views of women that were widely held decades ago. Perhaps some "girls" want nothing more than to have someone to take care of them, but most are realistic and understand that relationships are a two-way street. Most women are capable of taking care of themselves, but they choose to share their lives and share responsibilities with someone they love.

I like Dudley Moore, I also like Hugh Jackman.
Hugh wins as he is taller, bigger,more protective etc.

Yes, for me Id need to know my guy could protect me, in all ways.

Huh? Take care of them?

Taking care is a mutual thing in any relationship of mine.

Modern society is trying to reject traditional roles for men and women, but there is something behind these roles...

Human beings developed in the best way to reproduce. Love, in all of its intricacies, is best understood as a biological tool that developed to ensure that we reproduce, defend our families and care for our children.

Because of the female role in reproduction, they need to be taken care of-- especially during the vulnerable time of pregnancy. This is why strength, ability to provide and ability to protect are not only desirable to women... they are the traditional male role in nearly every society.

Modern society has ways around this and women are no longer dependent on men... but this is a big change from hundreds of thousands of years of our history.

But our traits, our desires and our insticts... developed out of necessity for so many years, are deeply ingrained.

If I had been worried about money and financial security I surely wouldn't have married my husband. I married for love.

Re: a question for you all.


Protection - i.e. comfort - is a part of love for both sexes.



Again, a strong sense of comfort can be a catalyst for love, but it can't be the only thing. It goes without saying that love is highly complex, and its potential for growth depends on many factors.



The key to a man's heart? I guess I can only speak for myself: someone who can hit the intellectual ball back, so to speak ... and hot sex.



Depends how we define love.

On the one hand, a person could argue "love" is really just a blurred concept that reduces to little more than "procreative lust," as you suggest. But we can love people whom we do not intend to engage in sexual intercourse with, so it's more than that.

But on the other hand, all the ways in which we have used "love" to describe what we're feeling - either for another person or an object - could also be little more than a semantic hodgepodge: we call "love" whatever feels nice to us, whatever draws us in. It really is a sort of ultra-ambiguous concept that we have yet to nail down. (Not the least bit ironic on this note is how many use the phrase "God is love.")

At an evolutionary level, I would argue love is the instinct that attempts to promote loyalty, which would be useful to a species that lived in groups. The combination of living in groups and having higher intelligence would produce the effect of love as a natural-logical consequence.

I was more secure with my finances BEFORE i married.
I am still able to physicaly protect myself better then Mr Wolf can protect me.
Neither one of those ideas crossed my mind when I married..
but that is just one womans opinion/situation. ;-)

Re: a question for you all.


debra is available for bra burnings, corporate functions, ball crushing and childrens birthday parties.

no offense meant.

I see you're getting to know your away around this place.

Re: a question for you all.


Hahaha. YOu're lucky you haven't gotten any death threats.

I think more often women need to be protected from their bfs. I am only interested in these things in so far as I would only date somebody i thought would do their share of taking care of the children. I would only somebody that was responsible and that i could trust to be a good father to any children we had, not somebody that i was infatuated with. Passionate love is a very bad basis for a long term relationship, as it will eventually fade. Friendship is a better basis for a long term relationship.

I was thinking about this question last night and had one idea.
People marry for ALOT of reasons. There are millions of combinations of random people marrying all the time. with that random combo, come random reasons.
I have heard and KNOWN teenagers who married just so they could drive each others cars
I have heard of people marrying just so they wont be alone.
I have heard of people marrying for money
I have heard of people marrying for an ' instant' family
I have heard of people marrying so that they dont have to leave a certain state or city.
It is entirely possible that a large number of ' girls' ( i would HOPE not WOMEN) marry for money or protection. Young girls dont always know thier butt from a whole in the ground. Money and strength can be a very popular combination in thier decision to marry someone.
Do I think it happens alot? .. unfortunatly yes.

Tim Allen said that for men and women picking a spouse is like picking a car. You admire the pickup truck and the sports car but in the end everyone ends up with a station wagon.