I had forgotten how loquacious I was in this article.

It’s been a long time.

Basically, what I think is that if a guy (guy #1) is a big loser, has no social skills, no hygiene, or whatever, he is much less likely to be in a relationship. Also, despite his single status, women are much less likely to hit on him or pursue him. If a guy (guy #2) is good-looking, has a nice body, is funny, witty, intelligent, well educated, employed, rich, he is most likely going to be in a relationship. (Isn’t that what women say? “all the good ones are either taken or gay”) Because he can actually *get* a girl, unlike the other guy. And who wants to be single forever? However, these attributes are also going to attract other women. And who would be over flirting with guy #1, who is probably also extremely annoying and overbearing to any girl that will give him the time of day, when they could be talking to guy #2, wedding ring or no? Also, when guy #2 does happen to break up, you can bet it won’t last long if he is looking to get into another relationship. It will be a lot easier for him than guy #1.

I personally think this is a much better explanation than the cliche “we always want what we can’t have” that everyone has been throwing around. If you put two equally attractive, successful, intelligent, funny guys together and one was single and one wasn’t, I will bet you that the single one would be getting more attention than the married one. But then, he also probably wouldn’t stay single for very long.

http://www.weirdal.com/

Personally, he is not the same since he shaved off his ‘stache and got rid of the glasses….”[/quote]

I don’t know about that. He’s a little less physically “quirky”, I guess, but he still makes great music. “White and Nerdy” was great.

Regarding your observations on bohemian artists and yuppies, you’re absolutely right. And one can consciously become different, though one can never consciously become intelligent. Even if it’s conforming, it is different from the “mainstream”.

And they called it guppy lo-o-o-ove ….”[/quote]

Please allow me to show my truly geeky side and answer your question:
http://www.weirdal.com/
Personally, he is not the same since he shaved off his ‘stache and got rid of the glasses….

If we didn’t we’d be complete morons, why would we want something we can have? The ‘want’ wouldn’t last very long since whatever we ‘want’ is attainable. I ‘want’ more money…why? Because I can’t just ‘have’ it.
A woman can ‘have’ a man that is married, just not immediately. Similar to me and more money, they would both take time to get.
People want things that they can’t readily have, because things that you can readily have you simply get, no extended wanting required. I ‘want’ Taco Bell, so I go get it…done. No more wanting. We want things that we need to want for a while before we can get.
Nobody wants something that they literally can’t have, if you do you are a fool. What would the point be in wanting something that is impossible to attain? Just like what is the point in wanting something that is easily attainable?
We want things that we can’t immediately have.
Women ‘want’ married men because they have proven several things already, they are attainble but not readily (shouldn’t be anyway).
Put simply, I ‘want’ a car that has been tested and proven to be a high quality car. I might take a sexy looking prototype car that is untested and unproven though. It just means I’ll have to put the car through it’s paces myself and then judge whether I want to keep it, the proven car (married man) means somebody else has put it through it’s paces and judged it to be worthy.
I actually knew a couple guys that wore wedding rings out to the bar even though they were no longer married, they claimed it helped them ‘pick-up’.