American Women

[QUOTE=George90]I know that Russel Simmons, the founder of Def Jam Records, is married to a former Filipina model. [/QUOTE]

Actually, I read that Kimora Lee Simmons parents are African American and Japanese. I think that is qualification enough to be considered a Filipina though :)

She is certainly beautiful, but then again who knows with all the make up available these days. I do remember seeing a mug shot photo of her without all her wealth painted on her face and she was quite ordinary looking, but still sexy.

I am pretty sure that Mr Woods met his wife in Thailand, just another smart guy like us yet way ahead of his time, as most smart men are. She is also European and Chinese and Daddy Woods is part Chinese as well along with American Indian.
I'm German American with a little Scottish and I do mean a little..shit!

On the subject of Hispanics hooking up with AW here in the states, especially in the east to north east. I would attribute this to a lack of available talent. Poor Bastards have no where else to go. They probably are just settling for what is available. I would think that the number of Hispanic males entering these areas are far more than the number of Hispanic females moving into to these areas. I wish more of the females would move here as well :)

FF

I did happen to think of something pertinent to the discussion. I did think of an example of elevated social status (at least percieved) in a female allowing her to get a more attractive male..

I remember back during college, a "regular guy" buddy of mine from a pretty much blue collar family had a long relationship with a "heavy duty". She was a sweet girl, but quite frankly was just about as wide, as she was tall. I am pretty sure as my buddy was a typical normal "shallow" guy, that her most attractive feature to him was the novelty of dating a "rich girl" (her family lived in a wealthy community-Dad was probably a lawyer or mid level executive). They went out for about two years.

Again, anecodtal evidence proves very little but.....

Mind Over Muscle
By DAVID BROOKS
The New York Times

Once upon a time, it was a man's world. Men possessed most of the tools one needed for power and success: muscles, connections, control of the crucial social institutions.

But then along came the information age to change all that. In the information age, education is the gateway to success. And that means this is turning into a woman's world, because women are better students than men.

From the first days of school, girls outperform boys. The gap is sometimes small, but over time slight advantages accumulate into big ones. In surveys, kindergarten teachers report that girls are more attentive than boys and more persistent at tasks. Through elementary school, girls are less likely to be asked to repeat a grade. They are much less likely to be diagnosed with a learning disability.

In high school, girls get higher grades in every subject, usually by about a quarter of a point, and have a higher median class rank. They are more likely to take advanced placement courses and the hardest math courses, and are more likely to be straight-A students. They have much higher reading and writing scores on national assessment tests. Boys still enjoy an advantage on math and science tests, but that gap is smaller and closing.

Girls are much more likely to be involved in the school paper or yearbook, to be elected to student government and to be members of academic clubs. They set higher goals for their post-high-school career. (This data is all from the Department of Education.)

The differences become monumental in college. Women are more likely to enroll in college and they are more likely to have better applications, so now there are hundreds of schools where the female-male ratio is 60 to 40. Here's the important piece of data: Until 1985 or so, male college graduates outnumbered female college graduates. But in the mid-80's, women drew even, and ever since they have been pulling away at a phenomenal rate.

This year, 133 women will graduate from college for every 100 men. By decade's end, according to Department of Education projections, there will be 142 female graduates for every 100 male graduates. Among African-Americans, there are 200 female grads for every 100 male grads.

The social consequences are bound to be profound. The upside is that by sheer force of numbers, women will be holding more and more leadership jobs. On the negative side, they will have a harder and harder time finding marriageable men with comparable education levels. One thing is for sure: in 30 years the notion that we live in an oppressive patriarchy that discriminates against women will be regarded as a quaint anachronism.

There are debates about why women have thrived and men have faltered. Some say men are imprisoned by their anti-intellectual machismo. Others say the educational system has been overly feminized. Boys are asked to sit quietly for hours at a stretch under conditions where they find it harder to thrive.

But Thomas G. Mortensen of the Pell Institute observes that these same trends - thriving women, faltering men - are observable across the world. In nearly all developed countries, women are graduating from high school and college at much higher rates than men. Mortensen writes, "We conclude that the issue is far less driven by a nation's culture than it is by basic differences between males and females in the developed world."

In other words, if we want to help boys keep up with girls, we have to have an honest discussion about innate differences between the sexes. We have to figure out why poor girls who move to middle-class schools do better, but poor boys who make the same move often do worse. We have to absorb the obvious lesson of every airport bookstore, which is that men and women like to read totally different sorts of books, and see if we can apply this fact when designing curriculums. If boys like to read about war and combat, why can't there be books about combat on the curriculum?

Would elementary school boys do better if they spent more time outside the classroom and less time chained to a desk? Or would they thrive more in a rigorous, competitive environment?

For 30 years, attention has focused on feminine equality. During that time honest discussion of innate differences has been stifled (ask Larry Summers). It's time to look at the other half.

That's a very true trend. About 80% of all teachers in schools are female especially in the grade schools. They also punish boys more often than girls even if the girls start the problem.
Feminism 101 or rather "Woman's Studies" is also taught in major universities. The grades for this class is as follows:
A - You are a lesbian female
B - You are a bisexual female
C - You are a straight female
D - You are a gay male
F - You are a straight male.

Actually most of the sex I had in the USA is from the West Coast - in Las Vegas and in California, outside of L.A. I do find that Asians are more accepted in the West than in the East where they want to group people. My West Coast cousins have an easier time hooking up with chicks than my East Coast relatives. They were even offered promotions to come to New York but declined them. I even ask them if they can get me into their positions even if they pay slightly lower. I guess while I am stuck here, I will save all my money.

[url]http://fredoneverything.net/Feminization.shtml[/url]

Women are moving ahead of men. This is not because women are intellectually superior. It is because women now control society ( directly, and indirectly because they outnumber men and vote in a bloc in regards to women's issues).

I will let Fred Reed counter most of the points I read in the previous article, however.

[i]The Feminization Of America



March 29, 2004

In the United States women are, I think for the first time in history, gaining real power. Often nations have had queens, heiresses, and female aristocrats. These do not amount to much. Today women occupy positions of genuine authority in fields that matter, as for example publishing, journalism, and academia. They control education through high school. Politicians scramble for their votes. They control the divorce courts and usually get their way with things that matter to them.

If this is not unprecedented, I do not know of the precedent. What will be the consequences?

Men have controlled the world through most of history so we know what they do: build things, break things, invent things, compete with each other fiercely and often pointlessly, and fight endless wars that seem to them justifiable at the time but that, seen from afar, are just what males do. The unanswered question is what women would, or will, do. How will their increasing influence reshape the polity?

Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for)them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbors whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness.

I do not suggest that the instinctive behavior of women is necessarily bad, nor that of men necessarily good. I do suggest that that the effects will be profound, probably irreversible, and not necessarily entirely to the liking of either sex. The question may be whether one fears most being conquered or being nicened to death.

Consider what is called the Nanny State by men, who feel smothered by it, but is accepted if not supported by women, who see it as protective and caring. (Yes, I know that there are exceptions and degrees in all of this, and no, I don’t have polling data.) Note that women are much more concerned than are men about health and well-being. Women worry about second-hand smoke, outlawing guns, lowering the allowable blood-alcohol levels for drivers, making little boys wear helmets while riding bicycles, and outlawing such forms of violence as dodge ball or the use of plastic ray guns. Much of this is demonstrably irrational, but that is the nature of instincts. (Neither is the male tendency to form armed bands and attack anyone within reach a pinnacle of reason.)

The implications of female influence for freedom, at least as men understand the word, are not good. Women will accept restrictions on their behavior if in doing so they feel more secure. They have less need of freedom, which is not particularly important in living a secure, orderly, routine, and comfortable life. They tend not to see political correctness as irritating, but as keeping people from saying unpleasant things.

The growing feminizaton accounts for much of the decline in the schools. The hostility to competition of any sort is an expression of the female desire for pleasantness; competition is a mild form of combat, by which men are attracted and women repelled. The emphasis on how children feel about each other instead of on what they learn is profoundly female (as for that matter is the associated fascination with psychotherapy). The drugging of male schoolchildren into passivity is the imposition of pleasantness by chemical means. Little boys are not nice, but fidgety wild men writ small who, bored out of their skulls, tend to rowdiness. They are also hard for the average woman to control and, since male teachers are absent, gelded, or terrified of litigious parents, expulsion and resort to the police fill the void. The oft-repeated suspension of boys for drawing soldiers or playing space war is, methinks, a quietly hysterical attempt to assuage formless insecurity.

The change in marriage and the deterioration of the family are likewise the results of the growth of political power of women. Whether this is good or bad remains to be seen, but it is assuredly happening. Divorce became common because women wanted to get out of unsatisfactory marriages. In divorce women usually want the children, and have the clout to get them. But someone has to feed the young. Thus the vindictive pursuit of divorced fathers who won’t or can’t pay child support. And thus the rise of the government as de facto father to provide welfare, tax breaks, daycare, and otherwise behave as a virtual husband.

When women entered a male workplace, they found that they didn’t much like it. Men told off-color jokes, looked at protuberant body parts, engaged in rough verbal sparring as a form of social interaction, and behaved in accord with rules that women didn’t and don’t understand. Women had the influence to change things, and did. Laws grew like kudzu to ban sexual harassment, whether real or imagined. Affirmative action, in addition to being a naked power grab, avoids competition and therefore making the losers feel bad. It degrades the performance of organizations, sometimes seriously, but performance is a preoccupation of males.

Men are capable of malignant government, whether authoritarian or totalitarian, as witness North Korea or the Russia of Stalin. I don’t know whether women would behave as badly if they had the power. (I’d guess not.) But women have their own totalitarian tendencies. They will if allowed impose a seamless tyranny of suffocating safety, social control, and political propriety. Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women.

The United States becomes daily more a woman’s world: comfortable, safe, with few outlets for a man’s desire for risk. The America of wild empty country, of guns and fishing and hunting, of physical labor and hot rods and schoolyard fights, has turned gradually into a land of shopping malls and sensible cars and bureaucracy. Risk is now mostly artificial and not very risky. There is skydiving and scuba and you can still find places to go fast on motorcycles, but it gets harder. Jobs increasingly require the feminine virtues of patience, accommodation to routine, and subordination of performance to civility. Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as “macho,” a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men.

A case can be made that a feminized world would (or will) be preferable to a masculine. Perhaps. It is males who bomb cities and shoot people in Seven-Elevens. Yet the experiment has not been made. I suspect we will have the worst of both worlds: a nation in which men at the top engage in the usual wars and, a step below, women impose inutterable boredom. [/i]

The feminist movement is strongest in the USA and Canada, but outside North America things are very different. In Western Europe and Ozzie, the locals can easily visit Eastern Europe or Asia if local women become trouble. These days, its difficult for Americans to travel or live abroad which is not good news for those of us who are looking beyond our shores for women. AWs near the Mexican border might be a bit better but not by much.

I find the use of the term "marriageable" to be very interesting. What exactly makes one marriageable or not in the US. I suspect that for an AW a marriageable man is one who earns much more than she does. If that is the case, then the indications that men are falling behind in earnings and education will have profound consequences for women.

What will the American woman do when men can no longer to take her out to expensive dinners, buy her a big house and luxury car? Who will finance those kids that she wants to have? It seems that at some point she will no longer be able to have her cake and eat it too. Perhaps high earning women will date each other and visit sperm banks to obtain those kids that they all seem to want. Eventually women will marry women and that would make for some interesting divorce and custody battles. One can't help but wonder how the children brought up such a society will fare, a society where men no longer play active leadership roles.

I have seen women at work and frankly their propensity for backstabbing and gossip does not lead me to believe in the utopian propaganda that they spread. Female pleasantries are often belied by hypocrisy and viciousness. Legends of female dominated societies such as the Amazons potray anything but gentleness and equality for all. Female leaders throughout history have proven to be caple of corruption and war mongering as well as any man.

When American can no longer pretend to be victims and blame men for all their ills they will turn on each other surely. Things might not be all that bad for men in the future, at least they will no longer be considered cash cows to be used to finance every female whim. Women will be forced to choose between a poor man and a wealthy lesbian.

IMHO, most (if not all) high-powered AW have opted for the "there are other fish in the sea" option since they (and the same goes for the rest of AW) only date-up. I agree with Chocha Monger in that these "Women will be forced to choose between a poor man and a wealthy lesbian". I think they'll choose the wealthy lesbian over a poor or average man any day of the week.

Sexy, successful…and single?
By Elsa K. Simcik

Here’s the scene: A woman’s spending way too much time around the cheese tray at her neighbor’s drab get-together when suddenly, a tall, slightly stubbled gentleman (think Jack from Lost) approaches. After about 30 seconds of swapping stories about how they each know Trish (host of said drab gathering), he predictably asks her, “So, what do you do?”

Sounds cheesy (pardon the pun), but some women dread revealing their occupation. Who are they? They’re women with impressive jobs—doctors, lawyers, engineers.

And a woman having an impressive job always yields the same reaction from a man: Confusion, awkwardness, that moment when he’s wondering, “Is my job as an assistant manager of a copy shop going to sound pitiful?”

Apparently just because you have a lot of degrees on your wall doesn’t mean you have a lot of suitors at your door. And as women continue to achieve higher-level jobs, there are more smart, accomplished gals who have to face the fact that they may intimidate men. In fact, in 2003, women accounted for 36% of all chemists, 28% of all lawyers, 30% of all physicians and surgeons, and — wow — 66% of all psychologists.

So are successful women doomed to a life of tense cheese-tray introductions? Of course not. These women can either be patient till an equally high-powered man or a naturally confident fella turns up. Or they can know how best to present their career so as not to scare off less-assured guys. Here, some pointers:

Ask for advice
Bring your career down to reality, suggests John Gray, Ph.D., author of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. Open up and show a vulnerable side right from the beginning, “When a woman immediately senses that a man is intimidated, she should find a way of communicating that she has a need for some advice,” Dr. Gray explains: “For example, if she’s a doctor, she could talk to him about something frustrating that happened at the hospital that day.” Dr. Gray points out that men want to feel needed, so this tactic is a good way to bring him inside your circle.

Chat up guys about their career
“I say date someone who is as equally passionate about their job as you are,” recommends Jill Farrar, a lawyer. “After speaking legal jargon all day, that’s the last thing I want to come home to. I find myself usually dating doctors, architects or even salesmen—guys who are consumed with their jobs and want to swap stories with me.”

Find equal footing
Don’t let the conversation just be about work. Find a way to change the topic to something you can both relate to: The last movie you saw, your favorite spot for a hike, the wine-tasting class you’re taking next week. The goal here is to get talking about mutual interests—or hobbies you can share with one another. This isn’t just resume-trading time. Show what else makes you tick.

Know when it’s not going to work…
Still, some high-powered gals know that there are some situations where it’s best to say ‘there are other fish in the sea’: “I dated a guy who couldn’t get over the fact that I had a Master’s degree,” admits Whitney Bessler. “Since he hadn’t been to college, he would always remind me that I had two more degrees than him. He even made a point to read the newspaper right before he would pick me up. I didn’t care about our educational differences. But I did care that he made an issue out of it.” Whitney packed up her two framed diplomas and left.

And what if a guy is perhaps too pleased about your turbo-charged career? That’s a situation Kory Jones, a surgical resident, faced. She thought dating a musician/bartender would provide a nice balance to her intense, life-and-death, grueling-schedule job. “Most guys I date get fed up with the amount of time I spend at work,” explains Dr. Jones. “But this guy encouraged it. He told me to work hard so that when I was done with my residency I would ‘make the big bucks.’ The last straw was when he introduced me as his Sugar Mama.” The lesson here? Sometimes you don’t have to think too hard to know when a relationship just isn’t going to work.

Elsa K. Simcik is a writer specializing in relationships and fitness. Besides MSN Dating and Personals, Elsa has contributed to Men’s Edge, Daily Candy, Women’s Health and Fitness and more. She can be reached at [url]www.writinggal.com[/url].

[QUOTE=Cyberdas]IMHO, most ... high-powered AW ... only date-up. I agree with Chocha Monger in that these "Women will be forced to choose between a poor man and a wealthy lesbian". I think they'll choose the wealthy lesbian over a poor or average man any day of the week.[/QUOTE]When men finally realize that women have sex, not for pleasure but primarily to gain power, it becomes clear that high-powered AW will date lesbians.

This brings to mind something that I had been meaning to post about for some time. Something I have been seeing over the last couple of years is successful women pairing up with a man (I've seen the term "himbo" used) who is younger (I've seen 5-8 year differences), much less successful (I've seen "does seasonal work part of the year" paired with "six figure pharmaceutical rep"), and in my personal opinion, much less intelligent. What these women have done is basically gone out and found themselves a pet that can fuck them.

Granted, men do also commonly behave in a manner similar to this, but there is at least some evolutionary justification with they younger (not as smart, less accomplished) more attractive mate being more able to bear children than would a man's "equal" at say 36-40 years of age. Also, we generally admit to being "shallow" and into youth and beauty....which women hypocritically condem us for.

Also, someone posted about women's assertion that they are the "kinder gentler, morally superior" gender. This is complete and total bullshit.

As I have tried to explain to someone close to me who buys the propaganda, women can be the absolutely most vicious, vindictive, petty, deceptive, cut-throat creatures you could possibly imagine, and they are that way without a shred of guilt about it. And I don't want to hear any shit about "defending themselves from men", because they are actually WORSE to each other than to men. I'm sure we can all come up with examples. One jumping to my mind is an acquaintance I used to know whose wife left. She cleaned out the house down to taking ratty worn out washcloths and slivers of soap.

B9K, I've seen examples of the treachery of women that would make a James Bond villain seem like a grade school dunce. One brief example that comes to mind is my bud who married such a diabolical creature. He met her in December '95, proposed on Valetine's Day '96 (excuse me for a moment while I empty the contents of my stomach into the toilet) and married her the following May. Right before they were divorced, 1] he found out he was hubby #3 instead of #2, 2] she tried to have her premarital debts dumped on HIM and (the most outrageous) 3] she tried to sue him to carry out #2 AND to have him pay for the removal of her breast implants!! Also, AFTER they were divorced, to make it seem like she was extending an olive branch, she sent over her daughter (from a previous marriage) to say Hello. This girl, young as she was, had already learned the craft of treachery from her mother and my bud thankfully saw right through it: he knew she was going to try to claim he molested her if she got her foot in the door.

Tyhigs77, your post made me think of the state of this country due to the pussification of our society. While we are focusing on making our kids feel better about themselves, other countries are kicking the SHIT out of us scholastically, which trickles down to just WHO are the brains of this country: recent first generation immigrants or second generation immigrants who haven't been corrupted by the agenda of the jack-booted, brown-shirt Feminazis who want to eliminate competition (a male trait). That "bad" male trait is alive and well in other countries and as a result, creates a labor pool that companies in this country will fight over. I remember back in '97 I was conversing with a guy from Dhaka, Bangladesh. He was trying to get a job as a dealer in a casino, but he had a Master's Degree in ENGINEERING. There were SO MANY others like him in his country that they had to settle for whatever job they could possibly GET. He had to settle for a casino job in this country because he wasn't yet able to put his education to practical use.

To paraphrase an example I posted a long time ago, a FEMALE scientist said that if WOMEN ruled the world from the beginning, we'd all be wearing grass skirts and doing housework instead of having achieved what we have, such as advances in medicine, science, art, and so on.

Read some bullshit in Sundays Newsday paper about how female immigrants are being taught womanism and feminist principles by some AW's at a location in Queens. The article mentioned efforts to help Afghan woman empower themselves here in America... God forbid they should want to stay home and cook dinner for their husbands. The picture in the article showed about 10 woman standing tall with only 3 cracking smiles. One Iranian looking one had spiked hair sitting next to a fat chick looking all business. There was a smiling chinese girl who probably forgot to glare and look all pissed off like the other ones.

If this guy knew about this forum, do doubt he would know what to do. There are many alternatives around the world to fat/bitchy/fake/vile AW. Like him, many don't know this fact...........

She won’t lose the weight!
By Lynn Harris

Hi Lynn,
During the past six years, I have been involved in an on-again, off-again relationship with my college sweetheart. Time after time, we've gotten together and then decided to call it quits because of different circumstances. The real issue now is that over the years, she has gained more than 40 pounds.

I love her and could see myself with her for the long haul; however, her weight gain has really been a major issue in my not wanting to make a commitment to her. I have spoken to her about this issue a few times within the past few years, and I’ve gone as far as to write her workout plans, offer nutritional advice and advocate her making a lifestyle change. She isn't offended by my complaints, but aside from an occasional modest weight loss, she has regained the weight. I’m not shallow or using the weight issue to get out of the relationship: I'm worried about both the potential long-term health risks and, quite honestly, have become less attracted to her physically. Do you have any advice?
—Weight-Worried Waldo

Dear Waldo,
I suppose I could lecture you about how it’s “what’s inside that counts,” and about how some studies show that exercise and fitness are more important than (and often unrelated to) actual poundage when it comes to overall health and longevity. But honestly, my time would be better spent attempting to dismantle the size-ist bias of our society as a whole. (Working on it!) Because if you had been born during the Baroque period, you might be saying, “I’m not attracted to my girlfriend because she’s not fleshy and plump like those hotties in those paintings by that guy Rubens. What should I do?”

Just as I can’t tell you, “Well, get more attracted to her!” you can’t make her change herself. I can, however, help you with how you approach the issue with her. I know your recommendations (workout plans, nutritional advice, etc.) are nothing but sincere and clearly very constructive. But put her cross-trainers on your feet for a moment. If there were something difficult that you were trying to accomplish — get into law school, say — I’m not sure how effective it would be for someone, even someone you love and respect, to come at you waving LSAT workbooks and study schedules.

And just to up the ante, let’s say you had reason to believe that that someone’s love for you was contingent on whether or not you got into law school. That’s just the kind of pressure that might make you act out and not study.

So I think you need to let your girlfriend know that you want her to live — ideally, somewhere very, very close to you — for a very long time. And that she has your support in whatever she undertakes. And that you’re about to go for a nice walk to that farmer’s market with all the fresh fruit—would she like to come?

And then back off. Give her the sense that you’re not going to be hovering in her kitchen with a food scale; give her some time to do whatever she’s going to do. Turn your focus from her to you. What would it take to bring the love back? Is her losing weight the only thing? Are there evenings out you could plan? Are there fantasies you haven’t played out, perhaps; encounters that will bring back that college-lust feeling?

Once you’ve contemplated all this, you have to realize the bottom line: Are you willing to lose her over this? Ultimately, the decision is not on her scale, but in your hands. You need to take time to carefully answer that question—and let her know the answer.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Harris is co-creator, with Chris Kalb, of the award-winning website, BreakupGirl.net and author of the comic novel Miss Media. A journalist and essayist, Lynn also writes about gender, relationships, and culture high and low for Salon, Glamour, the New York Times, and others. In her spare time, she enjoys being married. Submit your own relationship questions for Lynn at breakupgirl.net. Your question may be answered in a future column.

This broad knows that she has the dude by the short curlies AND that she doesn't need to lose the weight. What's her incentive when she knows that she has him dead to rights? His faithfulness is repaid with an attempt to look like a model for a Rubens painting! What he NEEDS to do is to let her catch him red-handed gawking at another, slimmer, HOTTER woman. Now THAT'S incentive! IF she truly wants him and once she realizes she may lose him to another woman (after all, aren't baracuda AW's fiercely COMPETITIVE?) she'll diet and exercise with all the dedication of a gladiator-in-training. Fuck the sensitive, supportive crap! He needs to turn the circumstances around by making it a life-or-death situation. If she still doesn't respond favorably, he still ends out ahead: he knows she didn't respect him (a no-no) and loses unnecessary baggage, freeing him to scope out better prospects. However, it's unlikely he knows he has BETTER options than picking through the trash on THESE shores.

This guy is wasting his time. Even if he got his little porker to lose the lard what is there to stop her from gaining it all back after he marries her? There is no hold harmless agreement when it comes to divorce in the US. Miss Piggy will be enraged if he marries her and then decides to get out of it because he no longer feels like humping a hog. She will cite things like his having wasted "the best years of her life" and her having borne "his children" then the judge will make the poor bastard pay and pay!

This guy thinks he can make this chick a fixer-upper. Life will teach him however that when you get something that has problems and try fixing it up you will only get more problems. Eventually he will wish that he had saved his time and money and gotten exactly what he wanted in the first place instead of playing Mr Fix It. What he doesn't realize is that if this chick goes out and gets some surgery and a personal trainer then turns out pretty decent, she will most likely start believing that she deserves better than him. Ever heard of the chick that gets surgery then all of a sudden starts cheating on the boyfriend that stuck around her formerly ugly or fat ass?

AWs don't compromise unless it's their last option. They hold out for Mr Right throughout their best years and only consider Mr Reality after the cellulite appears on their legs, the tits start sagging, and the crow's feet emerge around their eyes. And even then some refuse to admit that they are well past their prime. American men should learn to do the same. If they must hold out in their youth in order to save their money for early retirement overseas where they can have pretty fit spinners with good attitudes then they must be disciplined enough avoid straying off course.