A new study from the labs of Durham University has revealed that women prefer wimps. Dr Michael Burt’s research has discovered that while hunks are ideal for a fling, a women would rather have a man with an ‘honest and kind’ face when looking to settle down.
Hardly unsurprisingly, men do not give a turquoise toss about personalities if they are out for a one-night stand – being more concerned with feminine looks and their ability to a) suck an orange through a hosepipe and b) wrap their legs around their head twice (I made those last bits up).
However, as men’s thoughts turn to procreation and long-term relationships, they seek a woman with intelligence, a healthy look about her, a pleasant personality AND the ability to suck an orange through a hosepipe.
Women, on the other hand, steer clear of the looks and want intelligence, reliability, protection and loyalty in supposed long-term relationships (where a generous divorce settlement is guaranteed) which must therefore account for why we get the likes of marriages such as Salman Rushdie and Padmi Lakshmi (a 32-year old model);
Rod Stewart and Penny Lancaster (a 6’1” supermodel); Rick Ocasek (voted 50/100 in a list of "The 100 unsexiest men in the world”) and Paulina Porizkova (a former supermodel); Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones (a stunning former B-list British actress, now über A-list since her marriage) and Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall (a Texan supermodel). All these men’s faces are as lived-in as my Cat boots - it is nothing to do with the men’s wealth and fame, really it isn’t...
Many years ago, when I was more nubile than I was able to cope with, I was courted by a millionaire who had a mansion on the Wirral (the posh part of Liverpool); a Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, Bentley and many high-powered bikes; an indoor and outdoor swimming pool; and gold-plated taps in his bathroom. He would wait for me to come out of my offices and ask me to lunch, offer to treat me to any outfit from any store and take me out for cocktails and dinner.
I succumbed and went out with him for a lunch one day and allowed him to buy me a cup of coffee. He boasted about his wealth, his connections, the opportunities I could have if I let him into my knickers and the lifestyle he would accustom me to.
Well, I have to confess that I turned him down. (What a fool I was in retrospect – just think of the alimony I could have now!) He was horrible: a braggart; a dope fiend; and he was so ugly that he looked like he had been set alight and put out with a shovel. He had nothing to commend him apart from his wealth (and his gold-plated taps, which I was very impressed by).
Maybe it was because I wasn’t looking to settle down at that age that I couldn’t see beyond the ugly exterior and interior and find a life of luxury? Maybe I wanted flings with nice-looking blokes, which stopped me falling for the millionaire’s attentions? Or maybe it was just because he had the personality of a whelk…
Surely, the old adage, ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ still comes into play for those of us who are genuinely not gold-diggers? If we are asked to rate a person’s attractiveness purely based on pictures, we are bound to go for the person that appeals most? That’s why we are unique and not all fighting for Jonny Depp, or in my personal opinion, Al Pacino.
An oft-included question on Interrodate, the internet dating site I once frequented is, “Do you value personality or looks more?” Generally, these questions come from a member who doesn’t include a photograph. So, he’s either butt ugly or married – I can quite firmly guarantee that, speaking from experience. Well, I’m sorry, I am going to be greedy and say, Both. If the initial attraction isn’t there, there is no way I am going to take hallucinogens every night in order to make the beast with two backs with you. I cannot spend the rest of my days in an altered state of reality believing you are some Sex God. You really have to appeal to me aesthetically and mentally.
Thankfully, my standards are pretty low these days…