I found myself in Phoenix during the last week of August, 2011. I was there to meet a realtor and look for an investment property. I found one and made an offer. We’ll see what happens.
Craig is my realtor for this deal. One of my other business contacts put me in touch with him. He is an awesome guy, someone I instantly admired. We spent all of Tuesday morning looking at houses I had picked from the Internet listings. When we were done, he was gracious enough to take me to lunch.
When two guys get together they inevitably talk about women. Duh! It’s usually in the top three, but not always third on the list. It goes something like this: Business. Weather. Women. What can I say? I LOVE being a man and I love talking about women—especially with other men.
He began telling me about a comedian—I forget his name—who described women like this: “Hot. Single. Sane. Pick two. Because if you are a single guy, that’s all you’re gonna find in a woman!”
Craig and I told stories about our recent and past “loves,” and determined that every one of them indeed had only two of these three qualities. It was hilarious to hear each other’s stories. It HAD to be. We had to laugh to keep from crying. The truth of it all hurt too much to face it simply as raw truth.
Is there something to that? “Hot. Single. Sane. Pick two?” I have said that the good ones are already taken. That stands to reason. If she is hot and sane, then she’s married, engaged, spoken for, somehow taken, or otherwise not for me. Oh well.
If she is hot and single, she’s probably insane—but not SO insane as to require institutionalizing. Then again, the judicial system is a mess, and it simply costs too much to warehouse a lady who is not an immediate danger to herself or others. The word “immediate” is the caveat. If she slowly eviscerates the soul out of you, or systematically emasculates you over the course of several months or years, well, that’s not an immediate term, right? I’ve dated a few women like this, it seems . . . or maybe it was me, I must concede. In any case, I have many stories about them. Perhaps I shall write them someday if I ever feel like wasting precious Internet memory.
If she is sane and single, well then, bluntly speaking, she’s not hot, at least not in the male-dominated visual sense of the word. Sorry ladies. The fact of the matter is, men are attracted first by looks. As much as I hate to defer to the shallow minded, that’s where it starts. Shame on us men.
But does it work the other way? That is to say, is it equally true for women to typically find only two of these three qualities in the men they meet? Consider the article here on DivineCaroline. It’s titled "Pudgy Man, Slender Woman: The Key to a Happy Marriage?" The article describes some of the most successful relationships as one where the man is not all that physically attractive, but the woman is.
The study compared the body mass index of each person in the relationship and discovered that, in the more successful cases, men have a higher BMI than their respective mates. He is attracted to her looks at first, and moves Heaven and Earth to make her his own, and be with her. She on the other hand enjoys the attention at first, but isn’t really all that in love with him. In time, though, she does fall in love.
Eventually, it seems, women fall for the sane and single man—i.e., he’s not hot—discovering that love is indeed an emotion, not an action, and certainly not reserved exclusively for Prince Charming . . . or Fabio, or Brad Pitt, or Keanu Reeves, etc. (The author of this article would do well to understand love in that way himself, but I digress.)
