Science plays catch-up

We needed a "scientific" study for this?

Two new studies reveal fascinating evidence that manwhores are much more attracted to promiscuous women than to less sexually available women. They don’t settle for them, they strongly prefer them. Essentially, men who are oriented toward casual sex deploy “adaptive, exploitative measures against women they perceive as vulnerable.”

First, I note that the description isn't of "manwhores", but rather, players. Susan is among those women who like to use the term as a would-be perjorative substitute in a futile attempt to convince young women that men they find attractive are not attractive, which is fine, but it's a completely inappropriate term because a manwhore is a homosexual prostitute, not a man who is sexually successful with women and is not compensated in any monetary form for the services he provides. One could make a much better case for women who provide sex after dinner dates as "womanwhores", but let's face it, that just sounds both ridiculous and redundant. Second, the concept was already covered in all the necessary detail a long time ago on Friends

JOEY: How're you doing?

RACHEL: I'm ok.

JOEY: Ooh, that bad, huh? Look, I can sense when women are depressed and vulnerable. It's one of my gifts.

However obvious, it was interesting in that it supported my contention that female intelligence is not an attraction factor for men, not even intelligent men. This is a myth that women cling to almost as strongly as men cling to the myth of male loyalty and devotion being an attraction factor for women. It's amazing, but men and women alike seem to have tremendous difficulty distinguishing what makes the opposite sex attractive from what makes an individual member of the opposite sex a wise choice as a mate. The two concepts aren't only different, they're barely even tangentially related and in some cases can be outright contradictory.