Girls!Girls!Girls

---

Wut do women want in a man?

Only your penis and your money

it varies for everyone.

A truthful nature, sensitivity and compassion, loyalty and devotion... and a high sex drive!

In reply to:and a high sex drive!See only your penis! Loyalty and devotion is just a synonym for loads of cash.My eyes are open

The women I know who've gone for men purely because they have plenty of cash (and I do know a couple, but they are in the minority) have invariably ended up miserable (and got what they deserved, in my opinion)

In reply to:All women I know gone for men purely because they have plenty of cash (and I do know a lot) And they get what they deserve, money.See, she admits it.

Kiwi: "Well I'm male but I screw oul ladies for money when I'm a bit strapped for cash; it's not just females who are golddiggers, we males have skills in that department too"Well fair play to you Kiwi, keep going with the evening up the score effort re the battle of the sexes; what's good for the goose is good for the gander.. lol

That was pretty good, tu'shay.

Gratefully accepted..To the op; when I met my bloke he was pretty broke, it didnt make any difference to me. He was increadibly sexy and hillariously funny and that was the main thing. We've been together four years and he's a lot better off financially now; really most women (in my experience anyway) dont rate money nearly as highly as many men reckon they do. If you fuck like a machine all you need to afford is a condom..

It stinks when people make it seem like sex is the only thing important in a relationship or the only thing people want. Makes you think twice about ALOT of things.

I'm more worried about what I want in a girl. If I dig a lady, then I know I've got to be at my best to win her over.

Also, it's... err... spelled touche. Just F.Y.I.

I'm more offended, as a woman, if someone assumes money is what's important to us. At least there's some truth in the notion that good sex is important to a woman.

In reply to: Also, it's... err... spelled touche. Just F.Y.I. If you're going to correct someone, atleast get it right: touché

I was going to say that myself last night, but I thought it'd be a little nasty, ha ha. It just serves to show we shouldn’t go around correcting others spelling and punctuation, as our own is not always as perfect as we think!(By the way, 'at least' are two words, not one. Oh there I go myself, now feel free to flail me for my many typos around here lol!)

What's the deal with the "I've got to be..." (as written by triiip) construct? It's used all over, but even in serious speech by the folks who live in the British Isles. "I have got to be...". Why the assault on our nice language?
Do chicks dig guys who use language real good?

It's now standard British (and Australian) spoken English, Steve, to use "to have got" for "to have", in the sense of possession. It would be avoided in careful formal writing, but avoiding it in speech sounds a bit over-formal.Its use for the auxiliary "have to" = "must" is perhaps more recent and perhaps not quite as widely used, but very nearly. You could say "I have to" instead of "I've got to" in educated speech, but it would lack the common touch."Have got" is never used for "have" when it indicates the perfect tense."Had got" is much less commonly used for "had". It is usually only used for "obtained" (where an American would say "had gotten").It's refreshing to see an American regretting the bad state of British English instead of the reverse.

I was taught in grammar school that "have got" was redundant, but my teacher would often say it when she was talking.

>>>Do chicks dig guys who use language real good?

I don't know, but I sertainly don't dig guys who use language real bad :grin:

In reply to: (By the way, 'at least' are two words, not one. Oh there I go myself, now feel free to flail me for my many typos around here lol!) I deserved that. I better start proof reading my posts. otherwise i mite start typin funy