We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
This mathematical model offers key insight into our unbalanced sexual marketplace. The number and weight of a woman’s mate preferences is negatively correlated with the number of eligible mates that are available to her. Thus, the distance of a prospective mate to a woman increases with each new preference she adds. Put simply, the more you demand, the less you receive.
More generally, there’s a disconnect between what women want and what is actually available to them. Whereas greater male attainment increases the number of romantic options a man has, greater female attainment reduces the number of options a woman has.
I'm old, so young women probably won't relate to this, but my idea of the perfect man is the Cartwrights of Bonanza fame. All of them.
Ben, for financial security
Adam, for dark, mysterious, thrilling adventures
Little Joe, for just plain fun
Hoss, for reliability and cuddling.
Hop Sing, because every dysfunctional family needs a caretaker with a cleaver.
There are as many intelligent men of good character around now as there ever were. I found that by making my own living, I had a reasonable shot of establishing a relationship with one of them without worrying about how many diamond he could procure for me. As long as the guy doesn't harbor any unrealistic expectations of having access to an unlimited number of dependent women within x years of puberty (for small values of x), it works out fine.