No, Your Intelligence Isn't the Problem

I get e-mails from girls all the time telling me that they are attractive, sweet, well-dressed, fun, etc. but can't seem to get the guys they want. They then point out that they are working on a PhD and conclude their question by asking whether or not their intelligence is intimidating men and therefore turning them off. I get similar questions about career success: "I am doing everything right but I am very highly paid - does that intimidate men?"

This is the equivalent of a guy pointing out that he is smart, tall, reasonably good-looking and successful in his job, but struggles to attract girls - then asking if it is because his muscles are too big. I mean, after all, maybe that's what is keeping the girls at bay, right?

If you are a rocket scientist, there is a chance that your academic prowess might be intimidating to an average guy, in the same way that a steroid-injected meat-head's muscles might be a a little much for the average girl. Yeah, sure, there is a risk that pouring too much of your energy into academics will turn guys off a bit, especially if it is done as a mask for your feelings of inadequacy with respect to other women. It's the same risk that a guy runs when he devotes the majority of his free time to getting jacked, especially when it is done as a mask for his feelings of inadequacy relative to other men. But the muscles themselves aren't the chief problem, and neither is your degree or your job.

It's way more likely the case that you are underestimating the importance of your weight, or that you cut your hair way too short, that your posture is horrible, that you talk like you want men to believe you're stupid, or that you don't realize how much your lack of boundaries is making men dismiss you. These are the kinds of things that actually turn men off, in the same way that low self-esteem and low intelligence are the kinds of things that actually turn women off (not coincidentally, these are common problems among meatheads).

The women who ask this question are always asking "why don't I get any attention from the men I want?" Their question is never "why do I get tons of sexual attention from men, but none stick around?" (some do ask this question, but they never then go on to blame it on their degree or job). If a woman were asking the latter question, I still wouldn't jump to the immediate conclusion that her degree or salary was the problem; I would look first to her personality. But if a girl isn't even getting sexual attention from the guys she is concerned about intimidating, I guarantee her hypothesis about her threatening intelligence is wrong. Why? Because there is a remote possibility that men will be intimidated or turned off by a woman's brains or job when they are considering her as a girlfriend or spouse, but there is no possibility that it will prevent at least some guys from trying to get in her pants. None whatsoever. Men go for the girls they are physically attracted to, then choose from those the ones they are personally attracted to. Only after that do they take into account things like brains and (much later) salary or professional success. You can't blame academic or financial intimidation on your inability to get a boyfriend or husband if you aren't at least getting sexual attention from the men you want; it'd be like blaming the power outage in your house on a government conspiracy or that neighbor you hate... during a raging thunder and lightening storm.

No, in all likelihood, your academic degree or high-paid position isn't the fundamental problem; but it is an very convenient scapegoat - and an ego-boosting one at that. It is a hell of a lot easier and more satisfying to blame big muscles or advanced degrees for your lack of success with the opposite sex than it is to find out (or admit) what's really wrong. And for women, what is really wrong almost always has something to do with your looks or personality, which, thankfully, are both very much controllable.


Related Posts
1. Men Don't Care About Your Accomplishments
2. The Importance of Personal Boundaries
3. Human Energy is Conserved
4. Are You Repressing Your Femininity?
5. What Men Think About Your Intelligence

On Being a "Typical" Girl

I always cringe when I hear girls talk about a situation with a guy they like (or are dating), and they end with something like “…of course I am over-analyzing the situation, like a typical girl.” On the most recent occasion, which prompted me to write this post, a girl that I know was causally sleeping with a guy who would sometimes be affectionate and boyfriend-like, but at other times would seem completely disinterested. She explained this to me, and ended her narrative with the line I quoted above.

There are three things that bother me about this comment whenever I hear it. The first is that it is an expression of voluntary ignorance. It can be roughly translated to mean:

"Something feels wrong about my relationship, but the right thing for me to do is sit back and ignore my feeling of discontent. Silence and time will make me realize that there really is no problem – aside my own anxious and emotionally-driven behavior."

However, the glaringly obvious reality in these situations is that there is a very legitimate problem that needs to be addressed – or at least admitted. In most instances, the problem is that the guy is less interested in the girl than she wants him to be. The guy's behavior betrays this in subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) ways, the perception of which the girl is trying to sweep under the carpet. The action of categorically blaming "typical" female tendencies is actually just a psychological reflex or excuse, designed to postpone the inevitable pain that will come with rejection.

The second problem is a more serious one: by calling herself a "typical girl," with negative connotations, a woman is categorically insulting her own sex. The obvious implication is “women are all idiots because we stress out about men too much, are overly-emotional, and can't think reasonably about our relationships.” Not only is this not true (see below), but it is self-deprecating. Talking badly about yourself – let alone your whole sex – is always a bad policy. It is never necessary, and it demonstrates a lack of confidence that is hugely unattractive. Even if being a “typical girl” were obviously a bad thing, voluntarily drawing attention to it (or any associated behavior) would be a bad move.

The third problem, which is the most serious, is that a women who dismisses her feelings by calling herself a "typical girl" has no confidence in her emotions. Of course, it doesn't help that when a woman voices her feelings about a problem in a relationship, men will often tell her that she needs to “chill out,” or “stop being so emotional,” or even that she should “stop being such a girl.” But listening to and agreeing with a man who says this kind of thing – especially one with a vested interest in winning the argument or discussion – is nothing short of spineless. You have feelings, and your feelings tell you that something is wrong. They are legitimate feelings; you have them for a reason. Yet the second someone tells you that you need to stop being so emotional (and sometimes even without being prompted), you immediately doubt everything you feel, apparently convinced that there is something wrong with you for feeling the way you do. And then you actually verbalize that conviction, going as far as to insult your whole sex by blaming it on your womanhood. It is the ultimate expression of self-doubt.

Imagine if men did the equivalent. Imagine if your boyfriend came to you with a logical and well-expressed concern about the way things were going in the relationship. Then imagine if you, in response, flared up with emotion and screamed at him, telling him that he was being too logical and needed to feel more – that he needed to stop thinking so much. Maybe you would throw something at him while screaming this, just to add emphasis. He would stop and think for a moment, then agree, and then say something like “Yeah… yeah, I mean… I guess you’re right. I guess I am just being a typical guy... I really need to stop rationalizing everything.” Then he’d walk away - a bit puzzled, but ultimately convinced, and wondering how he could go about becoming more emotional.

Yeah, exactly – it would be absurd.

But this is precisely what goes on when a woman calls into question her primary tool for navigating relationships - that is, her intuition and emotions. A man is more rationally-focused, more logical in his approach to relationships; but this doesn't make him more right. We live in a world where Reason and Logic are increasingly championed as the only legitimate sources of knowledge. A few hundred years ago, this was chiefly a western error, one that we now refer to as “The Enlightenment.” But the influence of that movement is slowly propagating across the world, and destroying in its wake all confidence in emotional and intuitive knowledge – women’s strengths. In fact, it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that The Enlightenment induced Feminism, which could only thrive in a society that managed to convince itself that there was something inherently better about the masculine ways of operating in the world and understanding it - in other words, doing so via logic and reason rather via intuition and feeling.

I guess what I am getting at here is that the modern philosophical trends aren't on a woman’s side when her feelings about a relationship are called into question – but that doesn't mean that those feelings are wrong. Likewise, a man who only wants to continue having sex with you isn't exactly going to affirm the emotions telling you that something is off; but that in no way undermines their legitimacy. Just because outside sources are telling you that your feelings are whimsical doesn't mean that you should second-guess yourself.

The next time you feel something inside of you sink at the attitude of a guy's text-message, don’t doubt that feeling just because he asks you “what’s wrong?” and you struggle to pinpoint it. Believe your feelings. Have confidence in your intuition. Similarly, the next time you feel undesired because your boyfriend is spending more time with his friends than he's spending with you, don’t call that feeling into question just because he coldly and “logically” argues that he would be a bad friend if he spent less time with them. Trust your emotions. You wouldn't feel bad about the situation if there was nothing wrong about it. (For example, in this situation the problem is probably that you want a man who loves you enough that he is at least tempted to ignore his friends for you, which he clearly is not.)

So to conclude: be vulnerable in acknowledging the reality of your relationships. Even if you struggle with this, stop talking down on your own sex by stereotyping your reluctance to face the truth as “typical.” Most importantly, stop undermining the legitimacy of your feelings by backing down every time they are questioned, or even mistrusting them yourself. Don't be shy about using your emotions and intuition to navigate your relationships; they are legitimate sources of knowledge, and they are your unique strengths as a woman: be proud of them.


Related Posts
1. Never Tell a Man Why He Shouldn't Want to Date You
2. Get Used to Rejection
3. The "Three Mistake Minimum" Rule on Dates
4. Femininity, Authenticity and Compatibility

What Men Think About Your Intelligence

A reader recently commented on the post Men Don't Care About Your Accomplishments.

I am a highly intelligent woman, though not a genius by any means. However, men my age tell me that intelligence is not a turn-on for them. They say that as long as a woman is "reasonably intelligent" that is what they need... This makes me think that I might be possibly too cerebral to attract men... I laugh but I'm not bubbly and I never dumb myself down for men.

Someone rightly pointed out that part of what put men off was my desire to correct things they said that were inaccurate or participate in verbal sparring (I appreciate a good debate). I've reigned that in with good results but I want a man who actually likes my intelligence.

Is this a matter of men liking different things? Does my intelligence make no difference at all? Or is it a matter of combining my intelligence with enough social leverage to not make it my main feature?

This isn't the first time this question has shown up in the comments of this blog - or in my e-mail. I have also discussed the topic at length with my sisters, their friends, and a couple of the girls I've dated. And judging from their absolute disbelief at what I've told them, there is some news to be shared here...

No woman wants to date a weak man. In fact, a man's attractiveness to women hinges on her perception of his personal strength. A man could manifest his strength in many ways: he could be financially powerful (rich), physically powerful (tall or strong), socially powerful (confident), intellectually powerful (smart or witty), morally powerful (good), politically powerful (highly positioned), etc.; but unless you respect and admire him for his strength, however it is manifested, you will not be attracted to him. Even the best-looking man in the world will be rejected by women once they realize he is weak.

Men know that their role in a relationship is to be the more powerful one, and to use their power to protect and provide for their woman and children. If you subscribe to evolutionary biology's take on history, you will recognize this as a result of the fact that women have long been the physically weaker sex, and traditionally they have needed a male to protect and provide for them and their offspring. But reasons aside, the fact remains that men want to be the stronger mate in relationships. It gives us a feeling of importance to take care of our woman and children - it gives us purpose.

Women also prefer this state of affairs, as is evidenced by the fact that women routinely choose more powerful men as their partners. Women want a man who can hold his own among other men, who is impressive to them, and whom they admire for his strength.

Now, one of the most important signs of a man's power is his intelligence. It is the most pervasive expression of power because it touches every aspect of a man's life and facilitates all other expressions of power. For example, an heir to a large inheritance has financial power, but without the savvy to invest it wisely, that power will be squandered. A man might be physically strong, but unless he knows how to fight technically, he will be beaten soundly by much smaller, weaker opponents (the martial arts demonstrate this). Or a man might have all the social confidence in the world, but unless he is smart and discerning enough to know how and when to wield it, he will alienate those around him.

Intellectual strength is also instrumental in developing other strengths or powers. A man who is smart enough to understand the biological mechanisms behind dieting is going to be a much more effective in his workouts than the stereotypical dumb jock. He will see faster and better results, and will end up being physically stronger (all else being equal). Or a man who is sharp enough to observe and understand social dynamics will eventually gain more leverage over social situations than will a stupid but naturally confident person; his presence will become more commanding. Or again - more simply - smart men are more successful at their jobs and make more money than unintelligent ones.

One of the most common comments on the post Men Don't Care About Your Accomplishments, is the suggestion that men are are "threatened" or "intimidated" by smart, accomplished and intelligent women. When a woman is smarter than a man in a relationship, it isn't necessarily "intimidating" or "threatening," but it does rob him of a large portion of the power he feels that he needs in order to fulfill his role in the relationship - that is, in order to protect and provide for his woman and children. Note that it isn't his absolute power that is important here, but his power relative to hers. He needs to feel both powerful himself and needed by her in the relationship, both needs being intimately linked.

If this doesn't make sense, consider the same point by analogy: a man needs to feel admired and respected in a relationship in the same way that a woman needs to feel adored and desired. A woman's traditional role is to be the mother of the couple's children, and in order to fulfill that role she needs to be beautiful and radiant enough to attract her man - to make him want her sexually. A man who feels powerless in a relationship is like a woman who feels undesired in a relationship.

Alternatively, imagine how it would feel to date a man who was far more physically attractive than you. I don't mean more attractive "for a man;" I mean more attractive absolutely. Imagine he is tall, incredibly handsome, has the perfect physique and dresses impeccably. You, on the other hand, are slightly out of shape, have aged faster, aren't the best looking woman in the world, don't really do the whole "make up thing" well, and can never seem to pull off "stylish." Now imagine walking into a party on this man's arm. Heads turn from every direction as you walk in, but to take in his beauty - not yours. You are barely noticed. This is how a man of inferior intelligence (read: weakness) can feel in the presence of a woman who is much smarter than him. And this probably goes a long way towards illustrating how the feeling isn't "threatening" or "intimidating" so much as demoralizing - which is worse.

All of this is background to making the point that men want to be smarter than their woman, and they want this not because they are proud or misogynist, but in order to feel a sense of purpose. They aren't afraid of or threatened by smarter women, but their woman's intelligence can prevent them from having the advantage of power that makes them feel masculine and garners their woman's admiration.

Most women will admit that they don't actually want to be smarter than their man. While it might initially be an affront to hear that men want to be smarter than the women they date, you actually have the corollary desire. You want to be smart, and you understandably want to be given credit for your intelligence; but you know that intellectual ability plays heavily into a man's strength, and you want your man to be powerful - not only so that he can protect and provide for you, but also because you cannot be attracted to a man you don't admire and respect.

There are two caveats to this generalization:

1. Men will feel the need to be more intelligent than their woman in proportion to how masculine they are, because this dictates how much need they feel the need to fill a traditionally masculine role in relationships. It is also true that women will feel the need for their man to be more powerful than themselves in proportion to how feminine they are.
2. As mentioned above, there are different types of power. While intelligence is undeniably important, what ultimately matters is that the man and woman both value the same manifestation(s) of power and that the man has the advantage in that regard - whether or not this includes intelligence specifically. So, for example, maybe he and she both care most about physical power. Even though she is smarter, she will still respect and admire him for his height and physical strength; and he will be proud to fill the role as the one who is physically stronger in the relationship. In most instances, couples will put various levels of value on some combination of the different manifestations of power rather than all of it on one of them. But in the majority of relationships, intellect will play a large role.

One final and important point: intelligence is still undoubtedly a positive trait in women, so long as it does not undermine the man's strength by exceeding his. One of my favorite qualities of my most recent ex-girlfriend was her willingness and ability to talk for hours about our observations, ideas, and experiences related to a vast variety of subjects. She was always curious and often pensive. She was probably the smartest girl I have ever dated, and it might not be a coincidence that she was my most serious girlfriend.

So to conclude: a woman's intelligence is undoubtedly an attractive quality, but it has the negative side-effect of undermining a man's ability to feel powerful, and a woman's ability to admire him. The moral? Seek out men that are smarter than you, or at least, men that you still admire greatly in spite of their lesser intelligence. Keep at an arm's length any man whose overall abilities you start to question. Be cognizant of his feelings of strength in the relationship, always making sure that he feels - or rather, knows - that he is more powerful than you. And finally, smarter-than-average women: rest assured that your intelligence is not a negative in the dating world. While it is true that unintelligent men might be turned off by their own relative inability, your intelligence will be highly valued by the men you find most attractive - that is, the smartest ones.


Related Posts
1. No, Your Intelligence Isn't the Problem
2. Men Care About How You Talk
3. Men Don't Care About Your Accomplishments
4. The Analogy Between Confidence and Beauty

Men Don't Care About Your Accomplishments

A woman can brag endlessly about how much money she makes, the deals shes has closed, the celebrities she's rubbed elbows with, or the awards she's won: none of it matters to men. This might seem harsh, and it is perhaps slightly hyperbolic; after all, it is fairly interesting to know that a girl is successful at her job, or that she works with someone famous - and an award is always impressive. But none of these things translate into sexual or romantic attraction.

I am sure there are some women who grew up understanding otherwise. Or perhaps, having been dealt mediocre looks and a poor figure, others decided that they would pour their energy into their academic degrees or career rather than their beauty, and then proceeded (not without help) to dupe themselves into believing that men would like them for it. Unfortunately, this isn't the case, as many 30-something single career-women are currently realizing - the hard way.

I used to date a girl (older than me) who would always tell me about how she had just balanced some multi-million dollar budget, or how she was in the throes of closing an important project. And it was undeniably impressive that she reported directly to the CFO of the biggest hospital in the city. By all common standards she was successful. But every time she brought up work I got bored.

Women who try to attract men by being successful are like men who try to attract women by being sweet or gentle. While being sweet won't necessarily ruin a man's chances with women (in some cases it will), neither will it draw her in. Likewise, although a woman's business or academic success won't usually turn a man off (in some cases it will), neither will it attract him. Both of these misconceptions are examples of the sexes projecting their own desires onto the other. It is women, not men, who find career success attractive, because it demonstrates drive, focus, strength, initiative - masculine qualities. Likewise it is men, not women, who find gentleness attractive, because it is a symptom of openness, receptiveness, nuturing ability - feminine qualities. I got bored when the girl I was dating talked about work in the same way that women get turned off when a man starts smothering them with flowers and gifts, or constantly apologizes unnesessarily.

This isn't to say that women shouldn't earn PhDs, or become CEOs, or generally strive to achieve traditionally masculine goals. Whether or not women "should" do something is a separate question entirely from what will happen if they do. There are plenty of reasons that a woman might want to win an award or get a promotion; I am merely pointing out that she would be foolish to do so in an attempt to attract men.

Should You Focus on Your Looks or Personality More?

My audience on this blog is not uniform by any means:

• Some readers are good looking, others are not. 
• Some readers are interesting, others are not.
• Some readers are confident, others are not. 
• Some readers know how to dress, others do not.
• etc.

The advice that I give is similarly varied. Depending which of these groups (and others) you fall into, different pieces of advice (from this blog or other sources) may or may not apply to you. A girl who already knows how to dress well and look her best should not be scrutinizing every aspect of her appearance, even if I post about it frequently. Those posts are not intended for her. If a girl like this gets rejected it would be an exercise in futility for her to fret about the fact that she wore one top instead of another, or wore heels instead of flats, or put on too much make-up, when the real problem is that she is boring, or is always trying to identify with men, or is a slob. Perfecting some single part of her look is not going to have anywhere near as much of an effect as trying to improve her personality.

The fact of the matter is that improvements in appearance follow a law of diminishing returns. Added efforts produce less and less results. And there comes a point at which it makes more sense to shift focus to the areas of your life that will have a larger effect:

The phenomenon doesn't only apply to appearance. In a similar manner, a girl who has a good personality - who is radiant, fun to be around, nurturing, intelligent, cheerful - a girl like this would be stupid to spend her time harping on the fact that she sometimes feels a little awkward in social situations, or lamenting her less-than-impressive intelligence. Instead, this girl should focus more about her appearance (which was probably neglected while she was becoming an awesome person). In doing so she might realize that her clothes often clash with her complexion, or that her hair doesn't suit her face shape, or that heels make her look sexy - all of which would be far more effective in making her more attractive to men than making some minute improvement to her personality.

Many women will lie somewhere between the states represented by the two plots, depending on how they have invested their time and effort. But when you read advice from this blog - or elsewhere - first understand what type of girl you are and where on each plot you lie before you decide whether or not it applies to you, or to what degree. 

 

(By the way, the 50-odd % location of the dividing line in the charts above is fairly arbitrary, and the shape of the curve will probably be different for every girl anyway. Don't pay much attention to it.)

Human Energy Is Conserved

Every person has a limited amount of time and energy, as well as the ability to choose how to spend it. At every moment of our conscious lives, we are making decisions about how to invest our time and effort - how to spend our "human energy." We do this either explicitly, by consciously making a decision to change the course of our action, or else implicitly, by not choosing to change the course of our action. For example, right now I can either choose to continue typing this post, or decide that it is not worth my time and instead go read a book or work out. Likewise, I can choose at anytime (explicitly) to quit my job and move to a new city, or else (implicitly, i.e. by not making that choice), to continue in my current employment and residence. Obviously there are influences swaying our decisions, making one path simpler or another more difficult; but in light of those factors, the decision is always ours to make.

While it is certainly possible to spend your time and effort poorly, or inefficiently, let's ignore that possibility for a moment and first consider two people - two girls - that both spend their time and effort well, but differently. Girl A learns at an early age that her beauty and presentation matter, and out of the 60 hours a week she has free from school and sleep, puts ten hours into improving her look, while the rest goes to other typical activities. Girl B, on the other hand, is taught at an early age that her intelligence and education matter. She takes this to heart, and out of the same 60 hours a week, spends ten on homework and reading (over and above what Girl A and other typical students spend on homework and reading). The rest she puts towards other activities just like Girl A. So we have two girls, the same in all respects, except in their decision about how to spend those ten hours each week. Assume also that they are about the same in their natural intelligence and appearance.

You can be sure that by the time the girls reach the age of 18, Girl A will be getting a lot more attention from guys, while Girl B will be a lot smarter. You can also be sure that Girl B will probably be a failure with men, while Girl A will probably be stupid. Now, contrast them both with Girl C, who (ceteris paribus) spends those ten hours being lazy. I don't mean that she literally sits down and does nothing for ten hours a week, but those hours are distributed among the same daily tasks that the other girls do, because Girl C chooses to do them slowly, or she has to repeat them because she does them poorly. You can be almost sure that when she turns 18 she will be both a failure with men and stupid.

While I am sure you have your opinion about who is making the "right choice," that opinion is mostly immaterial to the point I am trying to make, which is that every person who spends their time efficiently has something to show for it. This is true in general - not just for women, and not just in terms of beauty and intelligence. For example, Guy A decided to spend his time practicing golf and is now semi-pro, while Guy B fostered his musical talent and started a successful band - or even Guy C, who has spent all of his free time just hanging out with his friends. While he doesn't have a talent in the traditional sense to show for it, he has strong friendships and will have good memories.

I think all of us recognize this phenomenon to one extent or another, intuitively. It was confirmed in my mind recently while driving past a small church in a tiny Italian village with my coworker. Sitting on a bench in front of the old church wall were several old men, in sweaters, caps and tweed jackets, just hanging out and talking among themselves. When we drove back past that same church a few hours later on our return trip, the same men were sitting there as if only a few minutes had passed. And from the nonchalance of their collective demeanor, it was clear that this was a typical occurrence, probably even something they did daily. I snapped this photo as we passed the second time:

The scene made me think that it is a shame that men in America don't do the same thing. It is incredibly rare to see old men with friendships so strong that they look forward to simply sitting together in the afternoons, talking and watching the world go by. If we, as a culture, set aside the time to do that each day, think how much stronger our social lives would be.

But then I immediately wondered "why don't we do that?" The answer was obvious: we don't do that because we don't have the time for it. That is, we don't choose to make the time for it. We spend it instead on enterprise or personal fitness. We work longer hours, get more accomplished, get to the gym and are probably in better shape. The Italians (and I don't think this is restricted to men) might have stronger relationships, but look at their economy - it is a mess; and it is a mess because they've chosen to sacrifice the hours that could be spent on industry or commerce on sitting outside the church each afternoon, or on longer (arguably better) meals, or (clearly better) fashion.

Again, my point is not to praise or criticize the Italians, or the Americans. The point is that different investments of human energy produce different results. Like all forms of energy, human energy is conserved. As long as it is spent efficiently, you will have something to show for it, even if what you have to show is not the most obvious thing in the world. The Italians have strong social fabric, great food and beautiful people; we as Americans have a strong economy and great achievements in sports and technology. Guy A is winning a big golf tournament this weekend, Guy B is about to release his first record and Guy C will have a huge attendance at his funeral and an amazing photo album. Each person has something different to show for their efforts.

So back to Girl A and Girl B. I suspect many of the girls reading this blog are closer to Girl B than A, which (partially) explains the emphasis I've placed on appearance in some posts. Your intelligence does not mean you are "deeper" or "better" than Girl A. Nor is Girl A better than you because she is hotter, or has perfect hair, or a great figure. It just means that while you were hitting the books, she was hitting the gym. In fact, the best investment of time and energy for a woman is one that cultivates intelligence and appearance, among a number of other life skills. If you actually are Girl B then you better get to the gym and the mall immediately and learn what "fit" means (for your clothes and your body). And if you actually are Girl A, you better spend some time at the library, learn how to stop saying "like" all the time and start thinking before you speak - and and get curious about life. (If you are Girl C, just give up, because you... oh, never mind, you already have.)

But perhaps more importantly, and at the risk of sounding really gay, the implication is that everyone has something to offer. As long as you haven't been sitting on your ass or living a repetitious life, or keeping yourself in a vacuum, your time and effort have yielded some form of knowledge, personality, or skills that are attractive to at least some men. I am not saying that some investments aren't more likely to score you a higher percentage of guys than others; but whatever your choices have been in life, you have something to show for it if you haven't been lazy. Learn how to make that "something" more evident to the men that will value it, or else convert it into something that the men you want will value. Then re-focus your energy on the areas of your life you've neglected while you've been spending so much of it elsewhere.