A short post by Dr. Helen linked this longer post at Maggies farm about a man who decided to evaluate an attractive woman in purely economic terms (as a "depreciating asset"):

I qualify as a guy who fits your bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I see it.

Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a cr@ppy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't be getting any more beautiful!

So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!

So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy and hold...hence the rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business sense to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease.

It occurred to me that not only was love being left out of the equation, but so were considerations of the relative intelligence of both the parties. So I said in a comment:

I think intelligence is at least as important (and possibly more important) than looks, so falling in love with a brain would seem to make more sense than falling in love with a body. I don't think all men would agree with this, though. As to women, who knows?

Isn't there an old stereotype about men being threatened by women with brains? How does this square with the new stereotype that men are stupid and incompetent?

So I can't figure out the rule. Do men want women to be less intelligent than they are? Or do women want men to be less intelligent than they are?

Maybe it depends on whether you're out to get something. If the goal is simply money, then money plus stupidity would seem an ideal match. Ditto if the goal is simply attractiveness. But if the latter is the goal, why not wait until androids are perfected?

In America research shows successful young women are hiding their accomplishments for fear that their academic achievements and financial kudos will scare off potential suitors.

And it is no different here. Researchers from Aberdeen, Bristol, Edinburgh and Glasgow universities discovered that high-IQ women saw marriage prospects fall dramatically, but men with high IQs had little trouble finding a mate. They found that for each 16-point rise in a woman's IQ, her marriage prospects declined by 40%, but the man's chances of marriage increased by 35% with each rise.

The widespread view is that accomplished women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men start out by saying they want a strong, powerful woman and then end up running off with the secretary. I should know. A few years ago my Swiss banker found my conversation too arty and cast his attentions on a lovely Spanish girl who worked in his office.

Should women pander to male insecurities?

Here's the conclusion:

Having grown up with successful women such as Margaret Thatcher and Madonna as role models, and with popular culture awash with fantasies of all-powerful women, from Lara Croft to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, men are not so uncomfortable with the woman in control. This value system recognises the trend of female supremacy, which while not as yet the norm seems to be pointing the way for future relationships.

I mean, excuse me, but I thought the goal was equality.

Or is that now just a step in the "process"? Sorry, but if the "choice" is now between male supremacy or female supremacy, count me out on all counts.

Sometimes it seems that politics is being driven by insane activists who want to impose their insane choices on the still sane (but non-activist) majority of people who just want to be left alone in their dwindling spheres of what was once called "privacy."

I'm wondering.

Is the conservative War on Sex supposed to be an alternative to the liberal War Between the Sexes?

I see it as another insane dichotomy, because either way, the result is the Sex War.

(I guess I'll have to redouble my ongoing effort be a "traitor" to both "sides.")