Romance for Real Women

Health officials in New York are warning members of that state’s more credulous population to refrain from ingesting toad venom marketed as an aphrodisiac.

Real women, of course, understand that eating toad venom isn’t such a good idea even if it’s packaged as “Love Stone.”

But aphrodisiacs have been around for centuries. The Chinese used to grind up pearls and ingest them as an aphrodisiac. In some parts of China, they still use pearl dust for medicinal purposes. Cleopatra, who knew a thing or two about seduction, dissolved a pearl worth 100,000 sesterces in vinegar and drank it after betting Marc Antony she could host the most expensive banquet in history. This, however, may have been more about conspicuous consumption than seduction.

In my own day, people used to suggest that oysters on the half shell were aphrodisiacs. That, and powdered rhino horn.

Viagra, of course, isn’t strictly an aphrodisiac. For it to work, the man must first be sexually stimulated.

I love oysters and good chocolate (also often cited as an aphrodisiac). However, neither has ever made me wiggle in my seat.

What does, however, are the following:

A man who gives some thought to a night out. A restaurant I’m fond of. A movie I’ve indicated I’d like to see, especially one based on a Jane Austin book which I know can be actually painful for men although I don’t understand why.

When I was younger, an offer to babysit the kids would send me scrambling out of my pjs. Now that I’m a little older, the gift of sexy lingerie hits my hot button.

Men who remove their own plates from the dinner table have it all over the blister beetle, sometimes called Spanish Fly, an aphrodisiac at least as deadly as toad venom.

And, men who can actually organize a meal without dozens of helpless questions are guaranteed my enlistment in the cause of their penile health.

Real women know these are not small matters. You won’t catch us ingesting toad venom, but we’ll go to home base for guys who measure up this way.

Real women might want to sit up and take notice of a just released University of Texas study on the different “mate values” harbored by men and women. According to the study, it’s a “serious effort to delve into an area that has been largely ignored by scientists.”

“Mate Values.”

That’s a new one.

Boiled down, the study found that beautiful people are attracted to beautiful people; it found that beautiful women want more from a man than a hot bod; and, it found that powerful men tend to have multiple wives and play around.

All kind of jaw dropping, huh?

According to news reports, the authors sent teams of interviewers to rate the attractiveness of women interviewed. Once they were rated, and I for one would love to know what they made of tattoos, like are shoulder tattoos more beautiful than butt tattoos? Did the respondents show them? What about various body piercings? Were they counted?

At any rate, respondents, rated beautiful or ugly, were given a list of “mate value” attributes, sex appeal, good earning capacity, good parenting indicators, education, etc., and asked to prioritize them.

Intelligence was at the bottom of the list.

No kidding. For both “beauties” and “plain Janes.” The researchers described the finding as a “puzzle.”

Who the hell did they ask? UT co-eds?

“Honey, you’re dumb as a post, but you’ve got ‘good partner indicator.’”

Think about it.

All those smart guys out there with poor mate value.

So saddle up, ladies. I, for one, like a guy who’s smart enough to check the mail, empty the dishwater and find a fuse box.

I think the playing field just got leveled.

Depending on who you listen to, divorce rates in the U.S. are between forty and fifty percent. And relationship breakdowns appear to be just as dismal in Europe. Recently, The Institute for Family Planning, a European family policy think tank released a report asserting there is a divorce in Europe every thirty seconds. (Its solution, by the way, is for European couples to have more children, a discussion we can get into another time.)

But, there is no doubt that these are disheartening statistics, especially if you believe in happy endings. I’ve gone through a divorce. My sister, Mary, whom I’ve mentioned has gone through several. They’re not pretty.

Nevertheless, the solution I stumbled early this week, suggested by columnist Lucy Kellaway seems preposterous. In fact, when I first read it, I thought it was farce, lame, but still farce.

Her brainchild is to establish an online date rating agency to collect information from former lovers about former lovers. She suggests “Date Rate” would be a cross between Ebay and Wikipedia. Information would include “fidelity, sexual appetite, generosity, dedication to watching football on television, tendency to leave dirty sock strewn around and so on.” Biographical information would be included.

Can you blame me for thinking this was supposed to be funny?

I naturally don’t expect anyone to take her proposal seriously. But I wouldn’t have anticipated anyone seriously asserting that having more children is an appropriate prescription for divorce so no doubt Lucy has potential bankers lining up to invest, assuming there are any bankers anywhere with any capital.

We are so out in left field here.

Marriage, partnership, dating, friends, children, family. All significant relationships involve some degree of risk.

When evaluating a potential partner, insist on meeting his family. That’ll tell you a lot. Meet his friends. That’ll tell you more. Watch how he reacts to small and large things. That’ll tell you something.

If you’re still not certain about your own judgment, run a D&B on him. Hire a detective. There are plenty of services out there that are more than happy to invade his privacy. Better yet, if you’re unsure about him, just run and save your money.

The last person you want to talk to is a former lover, especially a disgruntled former lover. Yeah, that’s information you can trust.

Dating, marriage, committed relationships…rough stuff and hard work. But no database of biased information from aggrieved ex’s is going to make it any easier or less risky.

In the absence of a worldwide database providing information on your quirks as well as quirks of former lovers to anyone who logs in, I’d suggest using a little commonsense when deciding whether to date someone. Better yet, listen to your heart.

You can view the article at www.ft.com